Full text of "Ars islamica"

See other formats

ARS ISLAMICA

THE DEPARTMENT OF FINE ARTS • UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

VOLS, XI - XII

ANN ARBOR

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS
MCMXLVI

PRINTED IN U.S.A. BY ANN ARBOR PRESS

CONTENTS

k ERNST HERZFELD ..... Damascus: Studies in Architecture — III ... i

HENRI STERN Notes sur l’architecture des chateaux omeyyades . 72

R. B. SERJEANT Material for a History of Islamic Textiles up to

the Mongol Conquest 98

AMY BRIGGS Timurid Carpets 146

K. A. C. CRESWELL The Lawfulness of Painting in Early Islam . . .159

A. R. NYKL Arabic Inscriptions in Portugal 167

HELMUT VON ERFFA ... A Tombstone of the Timurid Period in the

Gardner Museum of Boston 184

*NABIA ABBOTT The Kasr Kharäna Inscription of 92 h. (710 a.d.),

a New Reading 190

HUGO BUCHTHAL A Note on Islamic Enameled Metalwork and Its

Influence in the Latin West . . . . . .195

NANCY PENCE BRITTON . . Egypto-Arabic Textiles in the Montreal Museum . 198

RICHARD N. FRYE Notes on the History of Architecture in

Afghanistan 200

BOOK REVIEWS 203

^ IN MEMORIAM 207

Editor

RICHARD ETTINGHAUSEN

Consultative Committee

ANANDA K. COOMARASWAMY
K. A. C. CRESWELL
MAURICE S. DIMAND
ALBERT GABRIEL
ERNST HERZFELD

L. A. MAYER

ALEXANDER G. RUTHVEN
A. G. WENLEY
GASTON WIET
JOHN G. WINTER

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE — III *

BY ERNST HERZFELD

THE AYYUBID MADRASA

W hen DESCRIBING THE MADRASA AL-NÜRÏYA, I MENTIONED THE CURIOUS VAULT OVER ITS
portal.1 It consists of a pair of cross vaults, appearing in the elevation as a pair of windows
over the flat-pointed arch that bridges the bay and supports their middle. Without this arch,
the outer springing point common to both would hang in the air. The construction is a con-
scious attempt to produce a “suspended” vault.

What the master of the Nuriya attempted, the master of the Âdilïya has achieved (Figs,
i, 88-ço, and 93 ). The outer springing point of the pair of vaults in the vertical axis of the
façade is, indeed, suspended from above, as the design shows. The building was begun imme-
diately after the completion of the Nürïya in 567, but was finished only in 619, after two
interruptions.2 Apparently, this vault belongs to the phase of the completion, but since the
plan of the two madrasas is identical, the second architect may simply have carried out what
the first planned.

Madrasa al-Kilidjïya

(Figs. 2-3, 91-92, 94-95 )

A third specimen of the suspended vault at Damascus is the porch of the Madrasa al-
Kilidjlya:

Hanafite Madrasa al-Kilidjiya, built by Saif al-Din Kilid] al-Nâsirî, who charged in his will the
cadi al-kudät Sadr al-Din b. San! al-Dawla to constitute it as waqf; the cadi executed it, after the
death of the testator, in 645. It contains the turba of the founder who died in 643 .... (al-Shihäb
al-Küsï writes:) “The great-emir Ali b. Kilidj . . . . died in Sha‘bän 643 (Christmas, 1245-January,
1246) in his house, which had been that of Khâlid b. al-Walid. He had built, to the north of this house, a
madrasa for the Hanafites and a kubba [vaulted mausoleum] where he was buried. Madrasa and
turba were ruined during the Timurid catastrophe (803) and could not be rebuilt, since the town house,
waqf of the madrasa, had been burned down.” 3 (Nu’aimï)

‘Abd al-Bäsit reports a reconstruction during 924 and 970.

I read on the lintel of a window of the building which I believe to be the Turba al-Kilidjiya:
“The great emir, fighter of the Holy War, warrior, isfahsalär, of blessed memory, martyr, Saif al-Din
Abu ’1-Hasan Ali b. Abdallah — Allah the Exalted have mercy upon him! — said these verses and
willed that they should be written on his tomb after his death: ‘This, our house in which we live, is
the true house, and yet it shall perish. So build while you can a house into which you will be trans-
ferred before long, and practice the good that it may accompany you as a friend keeps company to
his friend!’ ” 4 (Nu'aimi)

The verses are, indeed, written on the lintel of the two windows, in three lines:

* See “Damascus: Studies in Architecture — I,” Ars
Islamica, IX (1942), 1-53; and “Damascus: Studies in
Architecture — II,” ibid., X (1943), 13-70 (hereinafter
cited as Pt. I and Pt. II).

1 Pt. I, Figs. 75-77.

2 Ibid., pp. 46f.

3 H. Sauvaire, “Description de Damas,” Journ. asia-
tique, IX sér., Ill (1894), 278. The article is continued
vol. VII (1896). References to it are hereinafter quoted
as J.A.

4 J.A., IV (1894), 315-16, n. 149.

ERNST HERZFELD

tmJ—, * u_L

-ÎP,

Fig. i — ‘Ädiliya, Plan

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Inscription 28

.2 iXa.? »»'» H tX^jLwJl '(? iüjîyJf j.juc iVl Jb’ .1 A

b^j cXaj 2La j /âYj î j ^ V Î 8 (b\^ L a4 . 3 &AJ Î - &*XJ Î -, Va b-'- ^ I

^1 L^Ai Llsi ^jJ! b>b sj oo .1 .B

On the lintel of the main door (Figs. 94-95), the middle covered by a modern partition
wall, tabula ansata, five lines and border, left half, 100 by 64 cm.; right, 120 by 64 cm., nearly
complete, unpublished:

■£- f ^

y I ^SLf^jj ^l*Jl JsS>bsrJf ] yuX!| yxil k^L-Jf iwjtXjl ScXS> yd .1

l*LoVl J^c- jv-bJl [ ]) rLgjLâJl (J^c. adJI (j^tXä ^yûLÜI ^3 .2

[ [Jl ^yb J*£. ^ydl viocXJ.b (j-çl*Â*à*J! K\£. aJJl .3 ^UjuJÎ xäaXä iu$| ^f^_w

|*UoVl [ — — ] bVj-tfj btbu*/ ^JöbJ! äfy Uo hgj xjyJI ^Lw^oj .4

sLaJd! b^y> iuLod! ^j| ^LXsLl^ ^U-bdl J^w ^jLâfVf
3 LgÂx> £tydt yyo| (?)iLoJlâ. ^jtiLiJl ^-«^1 août äI» ,j_j| ^-ui

Ä c- „

4X4=^ &»AJt RjL

Translation of material contents:

The great emir .... Saif al-Din Ali b. Kilid] .... has ordered to build this .... madrasa .... for
the jurisconsults .... of the rite of the imam .... Abü Hanifa .... at the discretion of our lord
the imäm .... cadi al-kudät .... Shams al-Din .... Yahyä b. Hibbat Allah .... the Shafiite . . . and
it was completed during. . . . the year 651.

The inscription confirms every detail of the literary tradition.

Of the old building, the entrance, the turba, and part of the prayer hall of the madrasa
are all that remain after the destruction by the Tatars; of the restoration carried out in the
tenth century, scarcely anything is left. The interior of the tomb chamber (Fig. 5) follows
the pattern partly of older Syrian domes, such as the one of the Mukaddamlya and those at
Hama, partly of the normal turbas of Damascus: pyramidal pendentives over the square
room, drum with windows, and dome. The drum has twelve windows, but every side is slight-
ly broken; little brackets, imitating the large pendentives, produce a twenty-four-sided figure
under the springing line of the dome.

The entrance bay is a full square, not, as normal, half of it, and was originally covered
by four small corbeled domes. Two of their springing points were suspended: that in the cen-
ter and that in the middle of the front. This last one is preserved, and also the corresponding
bracket-shaped impost on the back wall. The central one has collapsed. The exact shape of the
four covering elements — most probably monolith slabs — is unknown: fragments might well
be still hidden in the poor houses that occupy the premises today.

ERNST HERZFELD

In these three instances of suspended imposts the term stalactites would be justified, al-
though it cannot be properly applied to the mukarnas vaults. An ornamental pendant can be
fixed to any vault (cf. Fig. 102, Tengiziya) and is insignificant and entirely different from
such a tour de force, by which the architect wants to dazzle the inexpert observer.5

Bourgoin 6 gives another example from a Jerusalem madrasa, which seems no longer to
exist, since van Berchem in his Jérusalem ignores it. The idea seems to have had no imitation
elsewhere. That it turns up again in Tudor Gothic is well known, but one must not connect
the two groups; on the contrary, they are a warning: identical forms may appear anywhere
as the result of similar conditions.

0 »
liml— l

-4-

Figs. 2-3 — Kjlidjîya, Plan and Tambour

->'b >

5 There are a few vaults that create the erroneous
impression of being suspended. Their section is a tri-
foliate arch, its lower part in mukarnas, the upper a nar-

row, high-crowned semidome with purely ornamental
cones suspended from its lower rim.

6 J. Bourgoin, Précis de l’art arabe (Paris, 1892),

I, PL 20.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Madras a Abu’l-Fawäris, Ma'arrat al-Nu‘män
(Figs. 4 and 96-97) 7

South of the Great Mosque.

Inscription 29

At back of entrance, sculptured into the masonry of the lowest course of the vault and
the highest of the wall, four lines,8 220 by 80 cm.:

rLoV! . jjs/Lo LgÆsjj xi xxs LxjJI cX-»J ! &t\s& sLvij| — — — xA^w.j .1

^JLW! ^JLîLwJI X-Uî cXxC- ^j| X-tj'A j*Ud I* tXxwdlj .2 |».fo-C. V î

JüuJ! ^j| 4J fi LajlXJI \ y^cLX^'j ' .3 |*G? ^ xAJi

^jüîâJ! tXxjJI x-oGÎ .4 x-U! ptat ^xgis sLi jjüûLi ^c.

^ ^ J w X' ^

ÿ-j Uo ^.xjiAvj^ Xxwj ^ 2cUt Kt.^\ LiLixi y-GH Axe-

the humble Abu’l-Fawäris Nadja b. ‘Abd al-Karïm b. Ali Mu‘äfä .... has built this

blessed madrasa and the mimbar and has founded them as waqf for the rite of the imam

the imam of imams Muhammad b. Idris al-Shäfi% .... at the epoch of our lord malik al-man-

sür Näsir al-Dunyä wa’l-Dïn .... Abu’l-Ma‘âlï Muhammad b. ‘Umar b. Shâhân Shah b. Ayyüb, the
protector, zahïr, of the Commander of the Faithful in the year 595.

Below, in a shawla of the interlaced ornament, above the lintel, very small letters:

2t«Uf l ^ JpL»-fc

And Yüsuf(?) al-Hasani, Allah have mercy on him! administered its building.

Below, in another shawla:

*JUf 00 Is j»Ls Rju.^3

Work of Kähir b. Ali b. Känit, Allah have mercy on him!

The same signature is in a small, oblong field above the mihrab, on the springing line of
the dome over the prayer hall (Fig. 4).

The ruler is malik al-mansür Muhammad (I) of Hama, 587-617, grandson of a brother
of Saladin and father of muzaffar Mahmüd, who added the columns to the mihrab in the
Djämi‘ Nürï at Hama. The style is semiofficial, but I did not search the chronicles to establish
the identity of the founder. The name of the mutawallï, Yüsuf, is doubtful. The architect is
the same one who has twice signed the minaret of the Great Mosque of Ma‘arra.

The madrasa has an oblong court. The îwân of the entrance is covered by a dome on

7 M. van Berchem and E. Fatio, Voyage en Syrie,
Mém. instit. franç. d’arch. or. du Caire, XXXVII-VIII

(1914-15), 202; K. A. C. Creswell, “Origin of the Cru-
ciform Plan of the Cairene Madrasas,” Bull, de l’inst.
franç. d. arch, or., XXI (1922), Fig. 3, view PI. I, B.

8 The following text corrects Répertoire chronolo-
gique d’épigraphie arabe, ed. E. Combe, J. Sauvaget, and
G. Wiet (Cairo, 1937), IX, No. 3518, taken from van
Berchem’s notebook. (This work is hereinafter cited as
Répertoire.)

ERNST HERZFELD

pyramidal pendentives. In its axis on the opposite side of the court is a very wide ïwân, un-
explored, now wholly invaded by modern houses. On the south is a prayer hall of normal
shape: oblong, with three doors, and covered by a dome between two barrels. The mihrab is
a deep niche in a broad, oblong field, framed by a molding, the innermost fillet of which is a
common feature in Byzantine moldings.

Figure 4 shows the pendentive, very simple mukarnas, and two of the small windows in
the cupola. The smooth dome springs from a hexadecagon. On the north side, living rooms are
arranged, somewhat irregularly, because the premises are not straight. North of the entrance
is a tomb chamber with a dome like that over the ïwân of the entrance. On the south a much
later madrasa has replaced the original room.

The elevation of the portal {Fig. çy) is sober and well proportioned. Its vault is a cloister
of trifoliate section, the whole similar to the portal of the Sultänlya, Aleppo, tomb and ma-
drasa of Zähir Ghâzï, built before 613 h., the inscriptions having been added in 621. There,
the vault is a simple cloister.

Fig. 4 — Ma'arra, Abu’l-Fawäris, Squinch and Signature "î>-

The large lintel of the door is discharged in a peculiar way: the blocks on which a square
field of interlaced geometric ornament and two rosettes are sculptured form a true horizontal
arch whose joints are cut to follow the main lines of that ornament, on the whole seven
blocks. In later buildings ornamented slabs are used to hide the discharging arches behind
them.

Makâm Nabï Alläh Yüsha‘, Ma'arrat al-Nu‘män

{Figs. 5-9) 9

At the southern outskirts of the town.

Next to the wall, in the south, outside of the town, is the tomb of Yüsha' b. Nün [Joshua] as
they say, but the truth is that Yüsha£ is in the land Näbulus.10 (Yäküt)

At Ma‘arrat al-Nu'män is, as they believe, the tomb of Yüsha‘ b. Nün— peace upon him!— in a

9 van Berchem and Fatio, op. cit., p. 202, n. 4. 10 Yäküt, Mvfdjam al-Buldän, ed. F. Wüstenfeld

(Leipzig, 1866-73), IV, 574.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

mashhad there, which malik al-zähir Ghäzl had built anew, and to which he had given a waqf at
Ma'arra; it is a place of pilgrimage. When malik al-mu‘azzam Fakhr al-DIn Türänshäh came out of
prison, in Cairo, he bought himself land at Ma‘arra and gave it as waqf to that shrine; that was in
the year [blank].11 (Ibn Shaddäd)

11 Muhibb al-DIn Muhammad ibn al-Shihna, Al- routh, 1909), p. 98 (hereinafter cited as Durr).

Durr al-Muntakhab ji Tärtkh Mamlakat Halab (Bey-

ERNST HERZFELD

Our sheikh al-isläm Siräd] al-Dln al-Bulkïnï, on his way from Cairo to Aleppo, alighted at
Ma'arra in this shrine, makäm, and was told that it was the tomb of Yüsha‘, which he ridiculed. After
having passed the night there, rising early in the morning, he was heard saying: “It is Yüsha‘, it is
YüshaM” For he had had a dream revealing it to him. But I myself went many times in pilgrimage
to this shrine and stayed many nights in it, firmly believing in its barakät. (Ibn Shihna)

My father gave as waqf to the makäm Ibrâhîm al-Khalïl [Aleppo, Citadel] certain lands of the
village of Ürim al-kubrä’, a district in the Djabal SinTän, .... the makäm is much visited by pilgrims,
I myself spent there a certain time, which did me much good. (Ibn Shihna)

When Yäküt saw it, the building must have been rather new. But so many antique stones
are used in it, e.g., the four columns of basalt, with rustic capitals of Doric and Ionic order,
on the top of the minaret, another capital (Fig. y) serving as a seat at the door of the tomb
chamber, that there was evidently a pre-Muhammedan shrine on the same spot, whose mem-
ory lingers in the old name: YùshaM

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Figs. 7-9 — Ma'arra, Nab! Yüsha‘, Three Antique Capitals

The Muhammedan authors of this time, especially the three quoted, had some distorted
notion of the Assyrian kings through a translation or excerpt of Clement of Alexandria, Euse-
bius, or similar chroniclers, made by Abü Nasr Yahyä b. Djarir, a Christian physician of
Takrit, in the first half of the fifth century h. The list of Assyrian kings begins for them with
Bälüs (Bel), the founder, Nïnüs, the eponym of Nineveh, and Samiram (Semiramis). Among
the later kings is blkvrs (many variants), sometimes identified as Sardanapal. In the
Iranian legend, Nun e Yöshühän (i.e., Nün son of Joshua for Joshua son of Nun) is called the
founder of Nineveh (Nün). This is the town of Yünah “abu’l-nün,” father of the fish — an
epithet responsible for the transposition “Nün son of Yünah” — whose makäm stands on the
temple hill of Nineveh, called nabi Yünis. Thus, Joshua and Jonah were confused. Sanctu-
aries bearing such names, though attributed to prophets of the Old Testament, seem to per-
petuate aboriginal cults, in this special case that of a fish god, Nün, which one can trace from
northern Syria over northern Mesopotamia to Mosul and Armenia.12

Inscription 30

On the tympan of the vault, above the lintel of the door, badly whitewashed, ten lines,
middle-sized letters, see sketch of arrangement:

12 E. Herzfeld, “Mythos und Geschichte,” Archäol. Mitteil, aus Iran, VI (1933), 95.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

jôyJl .4 lait yS&LîhJ! 4LlJt .3 ^UaXwJf xL»jij yof .2 xL-wO .1

SyftXÜ! «Ai- .6 I j l*ib*/Vî ikLo bjtXJf !•’• ib,£. ^..c to 4 if .5

twftyjJ All , ibo ^asLJ! viLbJ ! ^pLàJl ys\ .7 ^yvis^kwJl^ ^j\+J | Ax*

^.C- ^ £- W£.

J, *oAvJl xjIA-&I jjS. *9 xo^lf* x>!y£^ xdjj xUi A-U&. .8 yyd yob

v s A»A I |bb*/ A-wjy5 XJj yüLéJi AaæJÎ ^ ».aj .10 2üLa**j ^2^1 xL*

The reading between the asterisks is uncertain.

Our lord the sultan malik al-zahir .... Ghiyäth al-Dunyä wa’l-Dïn .... al-Ghâzï, son of malik

al-näsir Saläh al-Dïn Yüsuf b. Ayyüb, nâsir amir al-mu’minin has ordered to build it in the

year 604, by the administration of ... . Murshid b. Sälim b. al-Muhadhdhab.

The plan of this makäm repeats, on a smaller scale, that of the mashhads al-Muhassin
and al-Husain of Aleppo; they are not essentially different from a madrasa, because there is
no special architectural type of a makäm. The sanctuary has a rectangular court; opposite
the entrance a deep Iwän, not in the axis, but with a front divided in such a way that the small
door to the left corresponds to a door to the right, leading to a corridor, and that the main
opening is shifted into the axis. The northern and southern sides are occupied by the tomb
chamber and a prayer hall, both in a situation due, in the original plan, to an Iwän.

The tomb chamber is square and has two deep recesses like the turba of Safwat al-
Mulük, Damascus. Here, the pendentives, cut from an octagonal pyramid, touch each other
in the four axial points, and from this octagon, inscribed into the square, springs the dome. In
the larger prayer hall there is the normal dodecagon between two barrels. Old wood carvings
are preserved at the doors of the tomb chamber and of the prayer hall, and at the door lead-
ing to the stairs.

An octagonal minaret rises over the barrel vault of the entrance, just as does the octagonal
minaret over the cloister vault of the Sultäniya, Aleppo, which is only a few years later. The
four columns supporting the little kubba on the top of the minaret show good taste in the use
of antique material.

Madrasa al-Sâhibïya (Madrasat al-Sähiba), Sâlihïya, Damascus
(Figs, 10, 11, 13, 98, 99, and 13s)13

Madrasa al-Sâhibïya, on the slope of the Käsiyün, to the east. Built on the Djabal of Sâlihïya
by Rabï‘a Khätün, daughter of Nadjm al-Dïn Ayyüb, sister of Saladin, Safadin, and Sitt al-Sha’m;
she died at Damascus in 643, more than eighty years old [hence born about 560], and was buried in

13 M. van Berchem, “Plan of Sâlihïya, Damascus,” k’
(unpublished MS in Geneva, hereinafter cited as v.B.,
“Plan”) ; K. Wulzinger and C. Watzinger, Damaskus, die
islamische Stadt (Berlin-Leipzig, 1924), No. DN, IX, g

(hereinafter cited as W.W.) ; J. Sauvaget, Monuments
historiques de Damas (Beyrouth, 1932) (hereinafter
cited as Sauvaget), No. 99, eight Unes with small plan.
For Figure 135 see Pt. II, 67-68.

ERNST HERZFELD

this madrasa. She was the wife of Sa‘d al-Dïn Mas‘üd b. Mu‘ïn al-Dïn Önör, to whom her brother
Saladin had married her [not before 576], having himself married, after Nur al-Din’s death [569],
the sister of Mas‘üd, Tsmat al-DIn. After the death of Sa‘d al-Dïn [in 581 14], Saladin married her
to malik al-muzaffar Gökbüri, lord of Irbil [born in 549, one of the greatest and most excellent fig-
ures of that time], with whom she lived for more than forty years. After his death [Ramadan 630,
eighty-one years old] she retired to Damascus, living in the house of al-‘Akïkï, which had belonged
to her father Ayyüb, until she died. In her service was the erudite, the just Amat al-latif, daughter
of al-Näsih, the Hanbalite. It was she who advised Rabi‘a Khätün to build this madrasa and to make
it a waqf for the Hanbalites.15 (Nu'aimï)

Im» ' 1 i i 1 j ^0m"EH

Fig. 10 — Damascus, Sälihiya, al-Sähiba, Plan n 7

Rabfa Khätün died at Damascus in Sha'bän 643 (January, 1245), when nearly eighty years old,
and was buried in her madrasa, made a waqf for the Hanbalites, on the slope of the Käsiyün. More
than fifty ruling princes were so closely related to her that she could not marry them.16 (Ibn Khalli-
kän) (The drawback of being too august 1)

14 Ibn Khallikän. Biographies , ed. F. Wüstenfeld 15 J.A., IV (1894), 468L

(Göttingen, 1835), No. 558, p. 64. 16 Ibn Khallikän. op. cit., No. 558, p. 67.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

To the waqf of the Madrasa al-Sâhibîya belong the larger part of the village Djubbat ‘Assäl,
the garden below the madrasa, the mill, and the rents of the greater part of the quarter adjoining
the madrasa.17

Mu‘in al-Din Önör, lord of Kusair, in the Ghör, was a client of Toghtekin and military
atabek of the last Burid Mudjir al-Din Abak.18 He founded a madrasa at Damascus in 524,
continually fought the crusaders of the kingdom of Jerusalem, and died in 544 h. His daugh-
ter Tsmat al-Din died in 581 and was buried in her turba on the Käsiyün, south of the ma-
drasa al-Chahärkasiya, which later became the Djämk al-Djadid of al-Sâlihïya. Both build-
ings exist.

It is doubtful that she was the mother of malik al-sälih Isma‘ïl and had built (Ibn
Shaddäd) at Aleppo a khänkäh with a tomb for her son Isma'il, in 577; he died when only
eighteen years old. But she may well have been the wife of Nur al-Din of whom Ibn al-Athir
tells :

Nür al-Din paid all the expenses for kitchen and wardrobe of the household from his modest
private budget. His wife complained about this penury, and he gave her three shops at Hims, which
he owned personally, and which brought in twenty dinars (gold) a year. One day, the princess re-
proached him, saying that the amount was too small, and he answered: “It is all I have. For all the
rest of what is between my hands, I am only the banker of the Muslims. I shall not cheat them, and
I shall not go to hell for your sake!” 19

Saladin was equally strict. Ibn Khallikän tells — from Bahä al-Din Ibn Shaddäd — that he left
only forty-seven dirham silver and one gold piece, no real estate, no houses, premises, gardens,
villages, or fields.20

It is improbable that Rabi‘a Khätün had founded her madrasa before her return to Da-
mascus in 630, as a septuagenarian, and the fact that the frames for the inscriptions over the
doors and windows are prepared, but not inscribed, shows that the building was not entirely
finished when she died in 643. The little madrasa is in a perfect condition and serves today
as a girls’ school.

The court {Fig. 10) is almost square, 11 m. to a side, with a slight variation of the regu-
lar cruciform plan: the entrance is flanked by a pair of small iwäns — compare the entrance of
the Där al-Hadïth al-Nürïya, the Zähiriya, Aleppo, and, on a much larger scale, the Mustan-
siriya, Baghdad — and the two lateral iwäns are shifted back, as in the Karamanoghlu ma-
drasa of Karaman,21 like large alae of an atrium. The square room in the northwest corner
is a turba, but the tomb is in the adjoining iwän. The building uses no cupolas, but only bar-
rel vaults, cloisters, and cross vaults. It is built in the very best Ayyubid style, with conscious
simplicity, displaying perfect mastery over stone.

17 J.A., IV (1894), 469.

18 Abak and Önör appear in Ibn Khallikän {op. cit.,
No. 1 21 — Tutush and No. 558 — Gökbüri — ). On Önör’s
inscription at Busra, 544 h. see M. van Berchem, “In-
scriptions arabes de Syrie,” Mém. instit. égyptien, III

(1897), 437, and “Epigraphie des Atabeks,” Florilegium
de Vogiié (Paris, 1909), pp. 4off.

19 Ibn al-Athïr, Chronicon . . . ., ed. C. J. Thornberg
(Leyden, 1851-76), XI, 266L

20 Ibn Khallikän. op. cit., No. 856, p. 74.

21 See Pt. I, Fig. 40.

ERNST HERZFELD

The portal (Fig. n ) is covered by a semidome in mukarnas work, three corbeled zones
under a vaulted conch. The plan is determined by the radii of a halved dodecagon. In the
middle zone every mukarnas is decorated with a small conch. The vault springs from a hori-
zontal line. A squinch is formed by a group of two brackets and one cell, supporting a conch,

Fig. ii — Damascus, Sâlihîya, al-Sâhiba, Elevation
of Portal i>- i<o

Fig. i2 — Damascus, Sâlihîya, al-Atâbekîya,
Elevation of Portal v

deeper than the others, in the second zone. By the third zone a perfect half-circle has been
established. The interior enveloping surface is simply a Sasanian dome with squinches; it be-
longs to the Iranian type.

Madrasa al-Atâbekîya

In order to understand really the peculiar character of these vaults, one must compare a
similar, contemporary example, the portal of the Madrasa al-Atâbekîya, not far west of the

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Sâhibïya, called also Bäb al-Sük, because it is situated where the old bazaar of Sâlihïya be-
gan {Fig. 1 2). 22

No inscriptions.

Madrasa al-Atäbeklya, west of the Murshidïya [= Khadîdia Khâtùnl and the Dar al-Hadlth
al-Ashrafiya.23 (Nu'aimi)

Both exist, the Dâr al-Hadïth, dated 634, 24 and the Murshidïya, dated 65o.2S
{‘Ibar, anno 600) : Malik al-Ashraf, lord of Harrän, married the sister of the lord of Mosul, the
atabekian princess, al-djiha al-atäbekiya. (Anno 640): In this year died the atabekian princess,
wife of malik al-ashraf Muzaffar al-Dïn Müsä [607-28 Harrän, 626-36 Damascus], foundress of
the madrasa and turba, Turkan (or Tarkan) Khätün, a daughter of Sultan Tzz al-Dïn Mas‘üd b.
Kutb al-Dïn (Mawdüd) b. Zengî b. Aksonkor. (al-Dhahabï)

Hence she was a grandniece of Nür al-Dïn.

She died in Rabï‘ I 640 (September, 1242) and was buried in the madrasa which she had built on
the Käsiyün. The night of her death, turba and madrasa became waqf. (al-Safadi)

NaAihz,

Fig. 13

D-H®

vJ3. cj' t b^vTi

Fig. 14

Figs. 13-14 — Sähiba and Building, van Berchem, “Plan,” q, Two Windows

The building has not been thoroughly explored, being occupied by modern houses, but
it looks as if the portal is all that remains of the original structure.

The joints of the arch stones over the small door produce an ornamental design. A very
simple form of this peculiar feature appears first in buildings as old as the tomb of Safwat al-
Mulük and the Dâr al-Hadïth al-Nürïya, in which the middle of three stones that form a dis-
charging arch is of basalt, cut in an ornamental shape. This is the rule for all windows of
Ayyubid madrasas and turbas {Fig. 13). A more developed form, over a door, appears on the

22 v. B., “Plan,” p; W. W, No. DN, V, g; Sauvaget,
p. 98, R. Dussaud, P. Deschamps, and H. Seyrig, La
Syrie antique et médiévale illustrée (Paris, 1931), PI. 91.
KJ.A., Ill (1894), 385k

24 v. B., “Plan,” n; W. W., No. DN, V, f; not in
Sauvaget.

25 v. B., “Plan,” m; W. W., No. DN, V, c; Sauvaget,

No. 102.

ERNST HERZFELD

flat arch over the entrance of a small shrine called Biläl, in the southern cemetery of Damas-
cus (Fig. 1 6). The shrine contains some old tombs which are beyond the scope of our subject.
The arch bears the short inscription: ^ ! jo* “This place

has been built anew in the year 625.”

The fully developed phase is reached in the main entrance to the Märistän al-Kaimari,
646-56 (Fig. 27). It is a good beginning, but soon degenerates into the two-colored arches of
the Mameluke period, which nobody can believe to be, and which are not, genuine arches.

The simple round molding with a loop at the summit and at the springing points of the
arch is a form of Syrian origin, used in contemporary monuments, e.g., the mihrab of the
Zähiriya, Aleppo, 613-16 h., and a small mihrab, built into the outer wall of the Darwïshïya
of Hims (Fig. 19).

From the very top of the wall, four large pointed brackets project, resembling the large
mukarnas over the entrance of the Sharafiya, Aleppo (left unfinished in 631); they cannot
have carried a vault in front of the entrance and must have formed a strongly salient cornice
only.

0 1 5M.

-tea=-l_ -t==l fc==d

Fig. 15 — Damascus, Biläl, Plan W

The detail of the mukarnas work of the semidome (Fig. 12) is very much like that of
the Sahibiya, and yet in structure it is deeply different. Both plans are dominated by the radii
of their upper conchs, here half a sixteen-sided figure; both have three zones of mukarnas,
one of which is decorated with small conchs. But while the vault of the Sahibiya springs from a
horizontal line and forms squinches, here two pendentives, themselves formed by three zones

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

of mukarnas, support it from below. There is no squinch, and all the zones are perfect con-
centric half-circles; all units of one zone are identical. The enveloping surface of the whole
is a semidome on spherical pendentives, the Mediterranean type.

In contrast to the mukarnas vaults of the Nur al-Din buildings, in these examples con-
cave alveoli and convex brackets alternate regularly in each zone. The brackets project less
than the points of the alveoli, except under the main conch. The greater projection brings
about a turn in the axes: whereas below concave and convex elements alternate above each
other, at the top the equal elements are above each other.

Fig. 17 — Damascus, Sâlihïya,

Fig. 16 — Damascus, Biläl, Arch over Door C; j Müristân al-Kaimarî, Arch 75 - 1 : :

Both vaults are models of the Ayyubid mukarnas vault, classical examples of one and
the same style. And yet, the structure of the one is Iranian, of the other Mediterranean. At
Aleppo, the following belong to the western group: Mashhad al-Muhassin, portal of Abu
Tarira, 585 h.; Shädhbakhtiya, 589; Mashhad al-Husain, Haram, 596; annex, 613-34; Kari-
miya, probably 595. To the eastern group belong: Mashhad al-Husain, portal of Zähir Ghäzi,
596 h.; Zähiriya, 613; Sharafïya, 631; Firdaws, 634; Khänkäh fi’l Farâfra, 635; and Kâ-
milïya, in Makâmât, between 624 and 636 h. {Fig. 101 ), at Damascus, e.g., the mausoleum
of Zähir Baibars {Fig. 100 ); enough to show that there is no distinction, local or temporal,
between the two. They are no longer two species, but one. In lands with so long a past as the
Near East one must expect such hybrids.

Palace of maliic al-‘azïz Muhammad, Citadel
{Fig. 104)

A representative example of the almost unknown Aleppo material is the palace of malik
al-£aziz Muhammad, citadel, 628 h. The inscription at the base of the mukarnas vault speaks
of a repair of the water conduits on the citadel in 769 h. — one of the many misleading exam-
ples of an inscription which refers to a comprehensive work but which is put on a prominent,
pre-existing building. The palace has no inscription of its own.

ERNST HERZFELD

In 628, malik al-‘aziz Muhammad [son of Zähir Ghäzl and Daifa Khätün] built at the side of
the arsenal (zardkhâna) a palace (där) too beautiful for words, on an area of thirty by thirty cubits.
On 9 Rabï‘ I 658 (February, 1260), the Tatars [Hulagu] demolished the walls and plundered the
treasures therein . . . the second destruction came when they returned in Muharram 659 (Decem-
ber, 1260). The whole citadel was destroyed beyond repair.26 (Ibn Shaddäd)

The façade of the palace, less than 15 m. (thirty cubits) long — dar means here as else-
where a large hall only — touches the arsenal, whose situation is determined by an unpublished
inscription. It is, indeed, a fine and unusually rich building.

Only the most solid material is used: dark gray basalt and yellowish limestone, no paint
or plaster, but inlay of costly variegated material. The lintel over the door is strengthened by
an invisible iron beam of square section.

TT^ OIL

Fig. iS — Hims, Darwïshïya, Plan j >-n<j Fig. 19 — Hims, Darwïshïya, Mihrab

I spoke of magic knots, ‘ukda, in connection with the marble marquetry of the Aleppo
school, and when describing the portal of the Ma'arra madrasa, I mentioned ornamented
slabs concealing discharging arches. Here, slabs of basalt, decorated with a large knot once
inlaid with light marble (Figs. 20-22), hide the discharging arches over the windows. The two
other knots in this figure are from the portal of Zähir Ghäzi, Mashhad al-Husain, 596 h., and
from the Masdjid Abi’l-Ridä, Aleppo, about 630 h.

The vault follows the Iranian variety and is richer in plan and detail than the Damascus
vaults. Well-projecting groups of brackets are used to accentuate the squinches in the diag-
onals. The original small window in the middle of the back wall is clearly marked by a little
niche. As at Damascus, the four mukarnas zones are corbeled, the conch above is vaulted.

26 Durr, p. 54.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

The oldest example of a mukarnas vault known at present is Imäm Dür. Next come the
three domes of Nür al-Dïn at Damascus. Their derivation from the type of Imäm Dür is evi-
dent. One must take these oldest Syrian examples as representative of the changes that took
place: the origin of the mukarnas is not the subject, but its adoption by the Syrian architects
and its adaptation to their style.

As exceptions and without significant function, brackets appear in the vaults of Nür al-
Din’s buildings. These vaults are made of brick (original Baghdad style) or of plaster (sub-
stitute). The succeeding Syrian vaults like the Shâdhbakhtïya of Aleppo, the Mukaddamlya
of Damascus, employ exclusively the regular alternation of cells and brackets in each zone —
that is the fundamental distinction. This expedient increases the margin of the projection,

Fig. 21 — Abi ’l-Ridâ Figs. 20-22 — Three Magic Knots From Aleppo

and, by lowering the angle, reduces the number of zones and the height of the vault. This
clearly was the intention and the reason for choosing that expedient. Moreover, the brackets,
when not projecting over the cells, are the lower part of the cells of the zone above, which do
not retreat to the full depth of the lower zone. Thus, by regular insertion of brackets, the cells
no longer grow, as scales do, out of the lower into the upper zone, but are confined to one zone.
A clean horizontal separation of the zones is produced throughout.

Now, all the Syrian vaults are executed in the best masonry. Numerous elements of
each zone are sculptured out of one block, the size and shape of which is determined by con-
siderations of stability. By inserting regular brackets one gains the necessary horizontal
stratification, saves carving, and avoids weakening the blocks. Hence, the driving force was
the transposition of original Iraqian brickwork into Syrian stone masonry, which had never
ceased to be the living inheritance from antiquity in Syria. That antique tradition trans-
formed the imported thought into something different and new, something Syrian. “Are there
thoughts but in Persian books? Ours are the rhetorics and the classical language, but the
thoughts are theirs!”

The difference between Syrian and Iraqian mukarnas is the same as between Syrian and

ERNST HERZFELD

Iranian madrasas: they have been entirely naturalized in their new land. It is irrelevant to
discuss here, how large a part the northern Jazira played in this transformation.

The alveoli function as, and are derived from, the older niches, conchs, kundj, an element
of vaults, originally truly vaulted. Without entering into their earlier history, one may regard
them as a rampant growth of a simpler structure. In describing the minaret of Ma‘arrat al-
Nu‘män, I have mentioned the capital of a column in the axis of the lower story.27 The same

Fig. 23 — Citadel, Makäm
Ibrâhîm

Fig. 24 — Dtâmi1 Khusrawïya
■'-y

^ bo

Fig. 27 — Karïmïya

Fig. 25 — Dtàmi‘ Kïkân

Figs. 23-28 — Six Antique Capitals from Aleppo 7])-!?^

kind of capital is found at the corresponding place on the fourth story of the Great Mina-
ret,28 a simpler variety of it on the mihrab in the Makäm Ibrahim, Sälihin,29 both at Aleppo.
The number of these typical specimens could be increased ad libitum. Now, everywhere in
Syria one finds a type of late antique capitals {Figs. 23-28 ) decorated with one or two rows
of utterly simplified acanthi. The medieval capitals are evidently the continuation of these
antiques. Again, Figures 29-31 show some wooden capitals of columns, representative of the
modern style of Mosul and Iraq. To the capital from Assur, made in 1903 by a Mosul car-
penter, I have added the names of its parts: from below first the torus, mabrüm, “twisted
rope”; then two rows of alternating leaves, the upper ones larger, called çhingâl, “claw,” be-
cause of their curved, overhanging ends; four volutes at the corners, malfüf, “volute,” and
lastly an abacus, mästaräsh, a loan word, referring to the diamond cut that usually decorates
them, hence evidently Persian almäs taräsh. One is amazed to see so late a survival of a
purely antique, Corinthian capital. Thus, there are acanthi everywhere.

But the other examples from Mosul and Baghdad prove as cogently the contrary: there

27 Pt. II, Fig. 56.

28 Ibid., Fig. 52.

29 Ibid., Fig. 57.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

are mukarnas everywhere. As in Gothic architecture, the elements of vaulting have invaded
the sphere of decoration, such as capitals and moldings. Figure 32 adds an equally typical
capital from the huge piers that support the vaults in the Djämi‘ Utrush at Aleppo, 801-11 h.
As in older Ayyubid specimens, the alveoli are decorated with a conch, here with its Mameluke
variety. Both contradicting conclusions are true. Two elements of totally different origin and
meaning have been assimilated so as to fuse. It is aesthetics only, the preference given to cer-

tain lines, curves, shapes, that causes the transition of one thing into another. The treatment
of the antique tabula ansata in Muhammedan art, as frame and as center of ornamental com-
positions, is another good example of such fusions.30

Madrasa al-Märidäniya, Sâlihïya, Damascus
Beyond the Djisr Thawrä, the White Bridge, where three roads branch off leading to the
northern suburbs of al-Muhädjirin (west), Sâlihïya, and Härat al-Akräd (east), on the slope
of the Käsiyün (Figs. 33-35). il

30 E. Herzfeld, “Die Tabula ansata in der islamischen Epigraphik und Ornamentik,” Der Islam, VI (1916), 189-99.

31 v. B., “Plan” without sign; W. W., No. DN, I, b;Sauvaget, No. 96.

ERNST HERZFELD

No inscription

Madrasa al-Märidäniya, on the edge of the Nähr Thawrä. next to the White Bridge, built, ac-
cording to the cadi ‘Izz al-Din al-Halabi, in 610, and founded as waqf in 624 h., by ‘Azizat al-DIn
Ikhshäwira 32 Khätün, daughter of Kutb al-Din, lord of Mârdin, wife of malik al-Mu‘azzam[‘ïsâ] ;
I believe her father was Kutb al-Din Mawdüd b. Zengi, brother of Nür al-Din. The foundress was
not buried there, for, after the death of al-Mu‘azzam [in 624], she went back to Märdin, according
to Ibn Shuhba. But another author says, she made the pilgrimage and stayed in Mecca. There she
fell into direst poverty, without any means, and became a water carrier. Someone who had known her
at Damascus and saw her in this condition told the administrator of the waqfs of the princess about
it, and he took a certain sum and sent it to her. She asked: “What money is that?” They said: “It
comes from your waqfs!” She answered: “What I have handed over to Allah I shall not take back!”
And remitted the money, adding: “Give this part to every one that has a claim!” Allah reward her
amply in His mercy! 33 (Nu‘aimi)

Khadîdja Khätün. daughter of malik al-Mu'azzam Tsä [first wedded by proxy to the Khwärizm-
shäh], died in Djumädä II 650 [read 654] in the garden of the Märidäniya and was buried in her
turba on the Käsiyün.34 (Ibn al-‘Asäkir)

The garden belonged to her, since she gave it as waqf to her madrasa turba. It seems
that she was the daughter of ‘Aziza and had inherited the garden from her mother. Kutb al-
Din Mawdüd of Mosul (544-65) had married a bride of his deceased brother Ghäzi, daugh-
ter of Husäm al-Din Timurtash (516-47) of Märdin, hence an aunt of Kutb al-Din of
Märdin. It is much more probable that ‘Aziza was the daughter of this latter. Märidäniya
means “princess of the house of the lords of Märdin.”

The little building has suffered by recent additions to its exterior, but remains unchanged
inside. The regularity of the plan (Fig. 34) is caused by the bifurcation of three roads. The
entrance is from the north. The court has its fine old pavement; other examples of the same
period are Aleppo, Great Mosque (seen in 581 by Ibn Djubair) ; Zähiriya, 620; Firdaws,
634; Hama, Djämi‘ Nürï, 558; Damascus, Djami‘ al-Aksäb, 634. The prayer hall lies oppo-
site the entrance iwän, as usual. The east iwän is fully developed; the western was smaller
and is reduced to almost nothing by the minaret. The entrance has still a soffit with good
wood carving, and in the prayer hall several such panels are preserved on the doors (Fig. 35).
The archaic ornament is certainly not later than 610.

Madrasa al-Ruknïya, Sâlihîya
(Figs. 36-40, 43, 145 ) 35

Madrasa al-Rukniya extra muros, built in 621 by the emir Rukn al-DIn Menguverish al-Falaki,
ghuläm (“white slave”) of Falak al-Din, the full brother of malik al-‘Ädil (Safadin); he was one of
the most virtuous emirs, who talked little and gave alms plentifully.36 (Nu'aimi)

Menguverish al-Falaki, great emir, Rukn al-Din al-‘Adili, lieutenant of Egypt for al-‘Adil,
once also of Damascus, built, on the Käsiyün, a turba and a madrasa and endowed it with a great

32 ' kh sh’ w r h is a strange name, perhaps Iranian. 35 v. B., “Plan,” p’; W. W., No. DN, XI, d; Sauva-

33 J.A., IV (1894), 28 if. get, No. 95.

34 Ibid., p. 279. i6J.A., IV (1894),

258.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

number of waqfs. He had built another madrasa in the quarter north of the Great Mosque, inside
the Bäb al-Farädis. He died in 631 at Djârùd and was buried in his turba. (al-Dhahabi)

Inscription 31

Over the windows on the south façade of the turba, inscription in seven lines, Neskhi,
small letters:

.2 DjeUïîJt ^LâJi ^ JujlJI ajü.l U ! jcjo .1

1^' -3 L$j s-o0> jv«^_s

9 i-OtO-o Ls-scXj .4 Ojäj &ÂXlLfiJl i^*-s iw>U Jsii-lj jltOl [two words38]

" ‘rï 'j JUäLaüJLs tXs^-df y'"SJ uwcXawJI j<*j

V/^' ^U-wJ! ^ ^ LCyL^J s^LsïJ! yjJl ^ .5

0^»J ^ÀJ! ^jjAliaJ!^ i_àî1^JLj o^ju

&-UL ^y>y?. cXs^ lM V o«yi, ^>Iä5^ 3 O^AiSJ Lc ^xij. j,S" X^yJ! ^UlL

£ iâïJôj -Kor. II, 177- •£} «Jjo «Jjuyj täjd^

In the name of Allah .... this is what the humble .... the warrior, the fighter of the Holy War,

37 Sauvaire (ibid., p. 306) and Sauvaget (in his trans-
lation in op. cit., p. 98) read: “al-malaki al-‘âdilï al-mu‘-
azzami,” indefensible even if al-faliki were not clear. The
place of al-malaki in such adjectives of clientele rela-
tions is before the name of the ruling king, hence al-
‘ädili, al-malaki al-mu‘azzami. Here we have three per-

sons: Falak al-Din, malik al-‘Ädil, and malik al-Mu‘azzam,
the malaki before the name, as in other cases, omitted to
avoid encumbering the phrase.

38 wa-dhälika ... ?

39 Or oujoGj .

ERNST HERZFELD

Rukn al-Dïn Menguverish, dient of Falak al-Dîn, malik al-‘Ädil and malik al-Mu‘azzam, has
founded as waqf (and) to be buried in it.40 He has established as waqf for its maintenance, for the oil,
the candles, the mats, the salary of a guardian and of reciters of the Koran (what follows) : the en-
tire house inside the Bäb al-Farädis, south of the Madrasa al-Falakiya, formerly called . . . further-
more a sixth of the two shops in the basket-makers’ bazaar; the entire garden (djunaina) south of
the Nahr Yazid at Sälihiya; a third and a half of the ninth of the house bordering upon the west
side of the garden; a sixth of the entire garden (bustän) belonging to the fields of Nairab, formerly
known under the name of the founder; a sixth of the garden (bustän) and mansion (diawsak) and
mill belonging to the fields of Nairab, formerly called cadi al-Bahdja; all this under the detailed stipu-
lations of the act of the waqf (usual threats and curses), and that in the year 624.

The inscription does not allude to, and the remains of the building show no trace of,
a madrasa, hence, the designation “madrasa” seems to be vaguely used in the chronicles in-
stead of turba.

The building consists of two square parts, both of the same period (Figs. 36-39). The
smaller square is a turba, the larger a mosque, though a small one, 15 by 18 m. in exterior
measurements.41

On the south side lies a broad haram with mihrab; its roof is a barrel vault with the ends

Fig. 33 Fig. 34

Figs. 33-34 — Damascus, Mâridânïya, Plan and Elevation -i &p

of the barrels slanted off, and with a cross vault in the middle instead of the usual dome. This
hall opens on the court through the normal group of three doors, here arranged exactly as in
the Dar al-HadiUi al-Nürïya. The north side of the court repeats this motif, whereas the east-
ern and western sides have a pair of arches on a middle column. A narrow, vaulted hall runs
behind the three fronts. As a whole, this small mosque belongs to the type represented in
Aleppo by the mosque of Zähir Ghäzi, the “upper makäm” on the citadel, built in 610.

But, exceptional in Syria and normal in Anatolia, the little court, only 6.8 m. square,
was covered by a dome. Enough of it remains to show that it was shaped like the dome over
the tomb chamber.

40 The feminine bihä presupposes turba. 41 Detailed architectural description in W. W., pp. i35“37-

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

In this mosque the Koran reciters prayed in continuous relay. A peculiar religious con-
ception, real reason for burial in madrasas, finds a clear expression in this building. In his

Fig. 35 — Damascus, Märidäniya, Wooden Panel

inscription on the Sultäniyä, madrasa turba of Zähir Ghäzl (620 h.), Toghrul, the faithful
client of Saladin and Ghâzï, the regent for the latter’s minor children, says:

|wLxJt sjS' L*d XsU-ô

That he who rests in this tomb may receive the award for the learning and instruction of knowl-
edge, and the benediction of the Koran and its recitation. . . .

And on his own mausoleum, the madrasa al-Atäbeklya, same date, he says:

&JJ! ^tj Lei’UjI 3 a-o |*Laj" *11 aoLioLa J.JJLÏ Lo | jo£>

(vaIöäJI Slyd! ^d AaJI I 3 2u.i JUjJoo «j'lij

Has proceeded to found this .... as a mosque for Allah, where the five prayers will be celebrated
at their appointed time .... — and if Allah wills that he should die outside of Aleppo, he shall be
buried here at the place prepared for him — and where the reading of the Koran never ceases ....

To appreciate the spirit fully, one may compare the Greek adespoton:

This is the tomb of Achilles the man-breaker, which the Achaeans built to be a terror to the Trojans
even in after generations, and it sloped to the beach, that the son of Thetis the sea goddess may be
saluted by the moan of the waves.

The pair of columns in the court of the mosque have capitals in the shape of a truncated
pyramid reversed, the edges being beveled in a peculiar way (Fig. 40). As in Greek “orders,”
a modulus, one-eighth of the upper edge, determines the length of every part. This shows that
the architects learned their handicraft and made exact designs from which the masons worked.
The truncated pyramid occurs at a slightly earlier date, e.g., as the shape of a well head, on
the citadel of Aleppo and in the Mashhad al-Muhassin, but I know of no capitals of that

ERNST HERZFELD

shape in Syria. In 805 the same shape appears in the mausoleum of Sultan Bayazid I at
Brussa (Fig. 42). Hence, one might classify them under Byzantine impost capitals, used on
columns under vaults. But the same type appears also in Persia, in the capital from a bath at
Isfahan, in the Russian consulate, about 1800 (Fig. 41). Imitations of Anatolian forms in
Isfahan are improbable, and the late Sasanian capitals — some rustic examples beside the well-
known pieces that bear busts of Khusrau II — are all impost capitals, i.e., such that gradually
transform the circle below into the square above. The problem of origin, thus, offers the same

0 I 5 IOM.

ÉEESÉ 'I

Fig. 36 — Damascus, Sâlihîya, al-Ruknïya, Plan ^ t

alternative as that of the conch: the original geometric form existed in the West as well as in
the East long before Islam.

Over the lintel of the pair of windows, north façade of the turba, is an ornament, rather
unusual at this period in Syria, at any rate at Damascus: the name Muhammad, written four
times in the turning movement of a swastika (Fig. 43). In Persia it is usually the name Ali
that is written in that way, whence the name “char Ali” for that type of script. An almost
identical çhâr Muhammad in Figure 44, sketched in 1907, comes from the Khätüniya

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Madrasa at Karaman. Thus, there are various little observations pointing toward some un-
explainable connection of this building with Asia Minor.

On the four corners of the cenotaph are decorative knobs,42 a trait common to all the

Fig. 39

O 1

LlaaJ I L

j L

iO rru

JBf

Figs. 37-39 — Damascus, Sâlihîya, al-Ruknïya, Elevation and Section

tombs of this period in Sâlihîya. The best specimens are on the four tombs in the turba al-
Chahàrkasîva dated 608, 615, and 635. Sauvaget remarks: “Les aspects divers (des bobé-
chons) se ramènent en définitive à un type unique, réduction pleine d’esprit d’une grande forme

42 No photograph or drawings available.

ERNST HERZFELD

architecturale: la coupole côtelée sur tambour octagonal ou sur double tambour”43 — the
typical dome of that period of Damascus. To confirm this view one could adduce a related
specimen, from the Khâtünïya at Muhädjirin, not much later, where the knobs look like the
picture of a small pavilion on eight columns.

It is quite probable that the masons who made these knobs thought of the cupolas they
saw every day. But as “réduction d’une forme architecturale” they would be a creation pro-
duced under very specific local and temporal conditions, while they are a general feature, not
confined to any epoch or to any region. The special shape can be nothing but a different in-
terpretation, never the original signification of the object.

Figures 45 to 48 give an example from the DjaTariva at Isfahan, dated 72 (x) h., and one
from Shiraz, a tomb of the Sa‘di period. The knobs on the four corners of those sarcophagi are
slightly different, but essentially the same. On the cenotaph of Murad II at Brussa (855 h.)
the knob has become a headdress, and the hundreds of turbans on the Turkish tombs of Eiyub

Fig. 42 — Brussa,
Yilderim Bayazid

Fig. 40 — Damascus, Ruknïya

Fig. 41 — Isfahan, Bath

Figs. 40-42 — Three Truncated Cone Capitals 220

and Scutari are well known. That is a totally different interpretation of the same thing.

Farïd al-Dîn ‘Attär at Nishapur

The original meaning, long since forgotten, sometimes breaks through the disguise of the
altered shapes. Figures 49 to 51 give the tombstone of the great mystic Farid al-Din ‘Attar
at Nishapur.44 The fine marble was erected, under a dome, by Shah Husain (1105-35). In the
inscription in Persian verses, twenty-four lines, appear the words:

JU». JL* oLoijo 1. 10

44 iX*w okCwJÛj (JLaw 1. 11

^Lo Iüaavj ^UaTw 1. 16

43 J. Sauvaget, Les Monuments ayyoubides de 632 as contradictory traditions of the death of Farid

Damas (Paris, 1938), p. 46. al-Din. The tradition followed by Shah Husain gives

44 E. G. Browne (A Literary History of Persia [Lon- 586. Besides, the verses fix the situation of Shädhyäkh,

don, 1906], II, 509) gives 589, 597, 602, 619, 627, and famous quarter of Nishapur.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Whatever their changing interpretation, these stones come down in straight line from the
phallic symbols that crowned the tumuli of western Asia Minor and Etruria in high antiquity,
symbols of life on the tomb. In Iran they were the metae of hippodromes, maidän < *maitäna.
Therefore, the polo gates on the maidän of Isfahan and all polo gates pictured in miniatures
have this shape. They appear also on all old bridges, for reasons unknown to me.

The turba of Rukn al-Din, the perfect type of Damascus turbas, is included in the dis-
cussion of the whole group, which will follow comments on a last specimen of the Syrian
madrasa, a müristän like the first monument studied.

Figs. 43-44 — Two Chär Alis

Müristän al-Kaimarï, Sâlihïya
(Figs. 17, 52-55, 103, and 110-113) 45

Saif al-Dïn al-Kaimarï,46 founder of the hospital on the Djabal (Käsiyün) was one of the emirs
most famous for their bravery .... he died in battle at Näbulus and was buried in his kubba opposite
the hospital. al-Dhahabi mentions his death under the year Ô53.47 (Nu‘aimï)

Ibn al-Kathïr notes under year 654: In this year died the founder of the müristän at Sâlihïya,
the great emir Saif al-Dïn Abu’l-Hasan Yüsuf b. Abu’l Fawâris b. Müshik al-Kaimarï, the Kurd.
The greatest emirs of the Kaimari tribe stood erect in front of him, as is the custom in the presence
of kings. Among his greatest charities was the foundation of the hospital on the slope of Käsiyün.48

Abü Shäma in his Kitäb al-Rawdatain, speaks of the ancestor, the emir Tzz al-Dïn Müshik,
son of a maternal uncle of Saladin, who died in 585 and was buried on the Käsiyün. Ibn
Khallikän says: “His father was hädjib, ‘chamberlain/ of the emir Tzz al-Din Müshik al-

45 v. B., “Plan,” w; W. W., No. DN, VII, 6; Sauva- 47 M. Quatremère, Histoire des sultans mamloiiks de

get, No. 100. l’Égypte (Paris, 1837-45), I. 60.

46 J.A., III (1894), 438. 48 J-A., VI (1895), 297.

ERNST HERZFELD

salähi.” 49 Nu‘aimï 50 mentions him as owner of the house, later Madrasa al-‘Adiliya al-sughrä’,
opposite the Dâr al-Hadith al-Nürïya. Like Saladin, the Kaimans were Kurds.51

Inscription 32

Around the three sides of the bay, at the height of the lintel over the door, in three lines ; con-
tinued above, in two lines (details of waqf), on the three sides under the springing line of the
vault; the date below, on the middle stone of the discharging arch over the lintel, in five lines,
very small and partly illegible. A translation of this long text has been given by Sauvaire,
with van Berchem’s corrections.52 I confine myself to the date:

*5 -4 -3 £&) ' -2 *L&jf .1

The building was begun in ... . Rabï‘ II 646, and finished in ... . Muharram 65 (x).

Inscription 33

Turba al-Kaimarïya, opposite the madrasa; 50 on the lintel of a window (Fig. 32), in tabu-
la ansata, 105 by 33 cm., four lines:

&iX& J S' — .1

cidLS x-LJ JLsi xJJ| .4 viLiyo jAptydf

XaLc

p^-; (^° p45-;

&2Li

,.,Luui

.... every living thing must taste death ! This is the tomb of the humble .... great emir, the fighter
of the Holy War, the soldier, the pillar of Islam .... of the community, the arm of the wars and the
fighters of the war, Saif al-Din Abu’l-Hasan, son of the emir Asad al-DIn Yüsuf b. Abi’l-Fawäris
b. Müshik. He passed away to Allah’s mercy on the eve of Monday, third of Sha‘bän 654 (August
25, 1256), Allah have mercy on him!

49 Ibn Khallikân, op. cit., No. 424 of Ibn al-Hädjib.

50 Cf. Pt. I, si.

51 The name Müshik is Kurdish, Iranian müsikän,
Armenian mskan (H. Hübschmann, Armenische Gram-
matik [Leipzig, 1895-97], p. 54), appears as mvsyk in
the Pahlavi inscriptions of Darband, Caucasus, dated
“year 700” — 404 a.d. Possibly to be connected with
Mvsk’n shäh of the Paikuli inscription, unless these be
Indian Mousikanoi of the Alexander campaigns.

52 J A., VI (1895), 297-99, n. 113.

53 Something like “in the first third.”

54 Not “in the month” but a qualification similar to
that given in the preceding footnote.

55 The units are doubtful. The wäw “and” before the
“50” seems to be there and requires a mit before, e.g.,
sitt, “six”; but then the necessary “in the year,” sanat,
would be missing.

56 v. B. “Plan,” v; W. W., No. DN, W, a; Sauvaget,

p. 103.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Inscription 34

In another Kaimanya turba in Sälihiya-West, near al-Muhädjirln; 57 on the cenotaph:

iJI y^£*J! <Y?jdl 1N& south

^♦*£>1 y*j!yUl ^j| north ^Lyo y-uYl ^ u, ^jJ! yc- Jl*5 aJJl Jyyy« west [3]

f w ^

äjL*£**j ^1 icU« yÂo k-bd eas^ s^=k^-? *-d| StX*-«-)

^Lyô vt (below, west)

This is the tomb of ... . the great emir .... Tzz al-DIn Yüsuf b. al-am!r .... Diyä al-DIn
Abu’l-Fawâris al-Kaimarî .... he died the eve of Wednesday, 9 Safar 674 h.

At last the turba al-Kumärlya (?).

On the slope of the Käsiyün .... that of Kumäri (?) Khätün, daughter of Husäm al-DIn al-
Hasan b. Diyä al-Din Abu’l-Fawäris al-Kaimarl. She endowed it in 694 with the khan next to the
Masdjid al-Aksäb.58 (Nu'aimî)

A late Turkish author, Rifat Bey, calls her Kaimarï Khätün, mother of Husäm al-Dïn.

These inscriptional data are not enough to reconstruct the genealogical tree of the Kai-
mans. On his tomb the proper name of the founder of the hospital is omitted, on the müristän
it is unclear: Saif al-Din Abu’l-Hasan. . . .b. al-amlr Asad al-Din Yüsuf b. al-amir Diyä al-
Din Abu’l-Fawäris. But this shows that Ibn al-Kathir either omits the name and title of the
father, or the proper name of the son and the title of the father. They bear the highest titles
just below the rank of a ruling prince. The founder of the madrasa was malik al-umarä’,
grand vizier, and näsir amir al-mu’minin. He appointed the malik al-umarä’ and cadi Näsir
al-Din protector, näzir, of his foundations, together with an acting inspector. The näzir is
probably a cousin of his, Näsir al-Din Abu’l-Ma‘äli al-Husain b. ‘Aziz(?) b. Abu’l-Fawäris,
founder of the “great Kaimanya” in town, to which he gave a clock worth 40,000 dirham. He
died in 665, and it is he that wrote the posthumous inscription of Abu’l-Hasan:

At the reign of our lord the sultan malik al-näsir Saläh al-Din Yüsuf (II) b. malik al-‘azïz Muham-
mad— may Allah perpetuate the greatness of his empire! [two years before it was wiped out by
Hulagu] — through the beneficence of our lord the sultan malik al-Sälih Nad]m al-Dïn Ayyüb b.
malik al-kämil Muhammad, Allah sanctify their souls!

It is unusual to speak of a deceased ruler as “our lord,” the more so as in this instance
the kingdom (Damascus) had been taken from the former by his hostile neighbor (Aleppo)
and successor. Only a man very loyal and, more, very powerful could do that. The Kaimans
had come from Kurdistan with Saladin, and they surrendered Damascus to the army of the
Egyptian Mamelukes after the sudden and unforeseen collapse of the Ayyubid glory under
the attack of the Mongols.

The plan (Fig. 33) of the müristän is evidently modeled after that of the Müristän

57 v. B. “Plan,” f; W. W., No. DN, III, 6.

58 J.A., VI (1895), 253.

ERNST HERZFELD

al-Nüri. It is the perfect cruciform plan of a madrasa, with the lateral ïwâns reduced in size. At
the same time it shares with the Madrasa al-Sahiblya the strict symmetry of the plan (one
single axis), the avoidance of domes, the exclusive use of barrel, cloister, and cross vaults, ap-
parently a fashion of that late period.

Over the entrance is a Syrian mukarnas vault, Iranian subtype. In detail it goes beyond
the norm of the older buildings and leans visibly toward the early Mameluke style, as repre-
sented in Damascus by the turba library of Baibars and Kalä’ün. A two-colored frontal arch
frames the vault {Fig. iy), a feature that stands on the line dividing Ayyubid and Mameluke
architecture.

Fig. 45 — Isfahan, Maidän Fig. 47 — Shiraz, Tomb of the Fig. 48 — Isfahan, Dta'farïya

Time of Sa'di

Figs. 45-48 — Goal Post and Tombstones Tb-üe?

The main Iwän on the south of the court, which offers a beautiful view of Damascus
through its three windows, is highly decorated. The material is colored plaster (cf. Figs. 112-
ij ). An inscription in an advanced style of Neskhi runs around its three sides at the
springing line of the barrel. It repeats over and over again the confession of faith: “Lä iläha
illä ’Iläha, Muhammad rasülu ’llähi.” Before that time one would have done better. The
floral elements between these letters {Fig. 54) are strikingly “late,” but the inscription be-
longs to the first and only building period. The ornament forming the border of the big arch
looks, on the contrary, like the survival of a third-century form. Other styles of ornament are
contrasted with these two; all together they look as if they had been taken from a sample
card the maker owned by chance, disproportionate and heterogeneous.

The two surfaces of the large barrel vault are ornamented like a carpet with border and

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

center. The border is a kind of astragal, the center a huge roundel; the Arabs call them mir-
ror, miräya, or dish, sinlya (Fig. 55). The roundel has twenty-four appendages resembling
the sixteen on the great Ardebil carpet of the Victoria and Albert Museum, dated 946 h.
These appendages and the circle from which they radiate are higher in relief than the middle,
and their elements are late Byzantine acanthi. Two inadequate elements are contrasted for

Figs. 49-51 — Nishapur, Tombstone of Farid al-Dïn ‘Attär

no other reason but increased effect. Figure 56 reproduces a roundel in stucco from the little
Turba al-Tzzïya in West Damascus, tomb of the emir Tzz al-Din Aibek, lord of Salkhad, who
founded the madrasa to which the turba belonged in 621. The roundel is representative of the
compositions from which the one in the Kaimarî Müristän was derived only some thirty years
later. There is simplicity in it and contrast, melody and counterpoint, unity and style. It is
infinitely better.

ERNST HERZFELD

One sees the pitiful process that must repeat itself always and everywhere: every artist
must surpass what has been done before him. The superlative replaces the positive, but wears
out quicker, and needs again augmentation. Old music forbade the septime accord; at a later
phase it became the dominant, the next must surpass it, and the last is forced to use discord;
this cannot be surpassed and is the end, death. The lapse of time an art can keep its high level
is short. These roundels, typical for many other observations, give a scale to measure the step
downward which this art made in the course of one generation. The apogee of Ayyubid art is
in Damascus at the time of malik al-‘Ädil (582-615), in Aleppo at that of malik al-Zähir
Ghäzl (583-613), of the brother and the son of Saladin. During the last thirty years of the
Ayyubid period, the art is decidedly on the decline.

° 50

l . I . . 1 L

Fig. 52 — Turba al-Kaimariya, Window

The study of the Syrian madrasa, not only of the examples published here, leads to the
following conclusions:

As an institution the madrasa was the thought of Nizâm al-Mulk, the ruler of the Seljuk
empire at the height of its power; as an architectural type it was an adaptation by Persian
architects of the Iranian plan used for large houses and most public buildings: the cruciform
plan. In the eastern Muhammedan world, as far as Iranian architecture dominates, that plan
went on to be used without essential changes.

Baghdad was the first step on its way west. At that time, just before 500 h., the architec-
tural style in Iraq was Seljuk, but adapted to brickwork native to that old land, a relation
analogous to that of North German brick Gothic to French Gothic. This style causes slight

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

o t

luul ■ ' ■

—ff”5»

Fig. 53— Damascus, Sâlihïya, Müristän al-Kaimarï, Plan

ERNST HERZFELD

changes in appearance and affects the vaults used in the madrasa ; the Mustansiriya, built in
the center of Baghdad, shows also alterations in plan under the coercion of the available
space, in a big town.

The farther west one goes, the more effective becomes this force. It is deep rooted and
explains deep differences between Iranian and more western styles. In Syria and Iraq many
“mounds of many cities” mark the sites of ancient towns. Towns rarely change their very
first place. In Iran most cities move after a certain period, usually after a short time. There
are climatic reasons for these displacements; often the towns recede from the plains, which
become too salty, nearer to the mountains from which their water supply comes. Other rea-
sons are historical: foreign invaders, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Tatars, all build — like Euro-

Fig. 54 — Damascus, Sälihiya, Müristän al-Kaimarî, Ornamental Frame

peans in Asia — their quarters outside the existing towns. When the Safawids chose Isfahan
as their residence, they took neither Gay nor Shahristän, the two existing towns, but built a
third. Thus, the main towns continuously shift, and limited space never restricts the architects.

The Persian traveler Näsir-i-Khusraw, when visiting Aleppo in 438 h. (1047 a.d.), sig-
nificantly says: “Aleppo seemed to me to be a good town . . . about as large as Balkh, entirely
flourishing. Its houses touch each other.” Certainly, in the bazaar quarters of the Iranian
towns the houses, too, touched each other; hamsäya, “shadow-sharer,” is the old word for
neighbor, and Zoroaster, in gäthä (Y.33,4), calls nazdistam drujam “proximity of infidels,”
the shady side of life in town. Elsewhere, the houses are not contiguous. When Ecbatana and
Pasargadae were founded, houses in gardens spread over a wide plain, protected only by a
citadel on a hill. Something of that spirit prevails to the present day. Larger houses with their
gardens occupy the entire area between two main and two side streets. This is the rule in
Samarra and may partly result from the institution of iktä‘: the ground is property of the

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

state and given as fief to the owner. Even when building within, not as usual at the outskirts
of, a town, sufficient space is always available for a public building.

Almost all Iranian buildings are royal ones, a term that here includes the works of grand
viziers and other high officials. So it was in Iran since the Achaemenian epoch: the king or
the government initiates monumental architecture. Of course, there are tombs, and there

-A

Fig. 55 — Damascus, Sâlihîya, Müristän al-Kaimarî, Ornamental Roundel

always were houses and even palaces of great people. But the distance between the groups
is great and truly reflects the social order: the vast gap between the ruler and the mass of the
population.

ERNST HERZFELD

In the West, where towns keep for thousands of years to their first place, the narrow
space inside their walls is crowded to the utmost; the tiniest piece of ground is fully utilized.
Working unrestricted by limitations of space entailed disregard for purpose and utility.
Waste characterizes Iranian works: the mosques and madrasas were never filled with the
number of people they were designed to contain. They are materializations of the abstract
idea and freely display purely aesthetic principles.

Fig. 56 — Damascus, Turbat al-Tzzïya, Ornamental Roundel

The main postulate is strict symmetry. This is the reason why, even when Persepolis
was built, the older oblong plan was replaced by a square, and large parts of buildings were
purposely repeated in mirror reflection, even when the special location made them unfit for
any practical use and actually invisible. Symmetry also ruled supreme in sculpture, and there
it caused every subject to be produced in pairs, leading to repetitions unparalleled in the his-
tory of art. In the course of time, simple symmetry must be surpassed, double and quadruple
symmetry is required.

Disregard of practical considerations is accompanied by neglect of technique, inferior ma-
terial, weak foundations and structure, and, as uselessness is compensated by symmetry, so are
these defects by rampant, dazzling decoration. Those are conditions favoring hypertrophies,
which, with other phenomena of degeneration, one can observe again and again in the long

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

history of that art. Seen as organisms, the Iranian buildings remain primitive in comparison
with others, for it is the overcoming of obstacles that produces higher organisms.

In coming to Syria, at the very beginning of the sixth century, the Iranian madrasa was
transplanted from a world of unrestricted almost licentious imagination into one of the sober-
est rationalism, that is the opposition of the Iranian and the Arab spirit.

Syria is a world of totally different social structure, and this is reflected in its buildings,
just as the other social structure is reflected in Iranian architecture. Of course, to build forti-
fications, citadels, castles, the great mosques, is the affair of kings and governments; the
madrasa is a state institution, and princes built madrasas. But a high class of the population
without equivalent in Iran, participated to such an extent that it equals the public and royal
activity of building not only madrasas but all sorts of institutions for public welfare. For
several centuries old families at Damascus and Aleppo appear as builders again and again in
the inscriptions: the Banu ’l-Khashshab, Banu ’1-Iskäfi, b. Abü Djarräda, al-Mukaddam,
Shaddäd, Shaibânl, ‘AdjamI and others; all these from the fifth to the seventh centuries. It
reminds one of Venice and Florence in the following centuries. And that is why, in coming
from Persia to Syria, one feels one is in Europe, not in Asia. One could speak of the contrast
between a royal and a civil art.

In Syria the general restriction by space dominates, aggravated by that of lawful owner-
ship. There is the restriction imposed by costs, the greatest thriftiness; the postulate of solid-
ity, based on a magnificent tradition of craftsmanship; that of usefulness, complemented by
dislike of the unnecessary, of mere decoration. All these forces were especially powerful at
that peculiar moment of the “Sunnite reaction,” of which the great personality of Nur al-DIn
was the exponent. One can, with justice, speak of the influence of his personal taste.

The architects had to overcome all these restrictions, and in doing so, they created a
much higher organism than that from which they started, and one that, though Iranian of
origin, is no longer Iranian in essence. The double symmetry of the cruciform plan, meaning
everything to the Iranian architects, had no meaning to them. The number four of the îwâns
may be preserved — as in the two märistäns and some madrasas — when all four fulfill a proper
function. There is no reason to give them equal size when their purpose does not demand it,
nor to keep them in the main axes when the secondary rooms around them would better func-
tion by a different arrangement. The open iwän is unsuitable, in Syria, for a prayer hall, hence
it is replaced, from the beginning, by a hall of the usual type. Some inferior techniques, e.g.,
the faked vaults in plaster, which had been brought over with the foreign type (Märistän
Nüri), are at once eliminated, and the great Syrian art of vaulting soon finds an answer to
the question posed by this foreign plan.

The aesthetic principles that dominate the Iranian model never influence the Syrian
architects, whose aim was solid masonry, good proportions instead of decoration, an equi-
librium of functional parts, carefully weighed, emphasizing the important, subordinating the
accessory, with enough contrast not to become monotonous, but no strict symmetry, simple,
double, or quadruple. Simple symmetry appears only at the period of decline, when the at-
tempt must be made to surpass the older and better works and when one yields to ostentation.

ERNST HERZFELD

Al-Fadl b. Marwän, first vizier of al-Mu‘tasim, tells in Tabari: “al-Mu‘tasim had no
liking for the decoration, tazyin, of the buildings; his mind aimed entirely at their solidity,
ihkäm.” 59 It would require a dissertation on epigraphy, protocol, religious acts, and institu-
tions, altogether a biography of Nür al-Din, to prove the assertion, but it is so; just as Nizam
al-Mulk had created the madrasa as an institution, so Nür al-Din is the creator of the Syrian
madrasa and, far beyond that, of the fine and sober style characteristic of Ayyubid art.

The works of his very first years, best represented by the Kastal al-Shu‘aibiya, Aleppo,
are the unaltered continuation of the style of the preceding, the Seljuk period, just as the
protocol is the old atabekian, and the script Kufic. At a point almost exactly definable by the
year 548, all suddenly changes. The new style appears, lasts, and reaches its highest point
under al-‘Ädil and Zähir Ghäzi. It is the deep movement of the Sunnite reaction that produced
these changes, and it was Nür al-DIn who impressed that spirit into the people of his time.

THE TURBA

Madrasa al-Sha’mïya al-Husâmïya extra muros

In the quarter (modern) Särüdja, old ‘Awniya, north of the walls60 (Figs. 1 14-19)! 61
Sitt al-Sha’m Zumurrud Khätün is for Damascus what Sitt Zubaida is for Baghdad.
Zubaida is famous the world over through the Thousand and One Nights; Sitt al-Sha’m is
known through Lessing’s Nathan der Weise, but unknown to the Encyclopaedia of Isläm.62
The high rank and political importance that the women of the Ayyubid family had — Daifa
Khätün, daughter of malik al-‘Ädil, e.g., was a very successful regent of Aleppo — is peculiarly
Kurdish. I have met and enjoyed the hospitality of two such ladies, ruling their wild tribes
with more authority than a man, “the greatest emirs stood erect in front of them as is the
custom in the presence of kings.”

The inscription on the house of Zumurrud Khätün gives her the title:

pf |*LwJ| x.».* ic. SwjuX.*!

The great princess, the very mighty, ‘Ismat al-Din, lady of Damascus, mother of Husäm al-Din,

daughter of Ayyüb b. Shàdhi.

59 Tabari, Annales, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leyden,
1879-1901), III, 1326.

60 W. W., No. C, I, 3 (p. 47) and No. E, 4, 9 (p.
70), extra and intra muros confounded; cf. p. 122, n. i:

“We did not enter it.” Sauvaget, No. 26, 17 lines text
and Fig. 17, drawing of an ornament.

61 Cf. Interior, Pt. I, Fig. 73 and Pt. II, Fig. 78.

62 Her personal name Zumurrud appears only in Ibn
Khallikän ; op. cit., No. 422 of Ibn al-Salâh. p. 128.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Titles such as “lady of Damascus,” which do not designate actual rulership, probably
come down from Sasanian Persia, type shahrbänök, “lady of the empire.” Zumurrud, daugh-
ter of Nadjm al-Dïn Ayyüb, was full sister of Türänshäh and Saladin, half sister of Rabï‘a
Khätün. She married first ‘Umar b. Lädjin, and Husäm al-DIn Muhammad was their son.63
Her second husband was her first cousin Abü Sa‘ïd Nâsir al-Dïn Muhammad b. Shïrküh b.
Shâdhï. Thirty-five kings were so closely related to her that she could not marry them. She
died 16 Dhu’l-Ka‘da 616 (January 23, 1220) 64 in her house, which she had instituted as
madrasa (Sha’mïya intra muros), south of the Märistän Nürï, and was buried in her turba
extra muros.

Her house, at present a school, is marked by the inscription of her waqf. Inside, I saw
an iwän that seemed to belong to the original building. One of her admirers, Abü Bakr Mu-
hammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhäb, an Ansäri, descendant of the companions of the Prophet, made a
great waqf “in favor of the Khätün Sitt al-Sha’m .... to pass after her death to Zumurrud
Khätün, daughter of her son Husäm al-Dïn Muhamad b. ‘Umar b. Lädjin .... till the extinc-
tion of the line, and, in case the house would have been transformed into a madrasa, to the
scholars of this madrasa.” 63

Madrasa al-Sha'miya extra muros, in the quarter, mahalla, ‘Ainiya [Abü Shäma, better ‘Awnï-
ya], built by Sitt al-Sha’m: also called al-Husâmïya, because Husâm al-Dïn was buried there at the
side of his mother, in the third tomb that follows the place taken by the professor(P). In the follow-
ing tomb lies her husband and first-cousin, Nâsir al-Dïn Muhammad b. Shïrküh, whom she married
after the death of the father of Husäm al-Dïn. In the adjacent tomb, to the south, rests malik al-
mu‘azzam Türänshäh b. Ayyüb, lord of Yemen.66 (Nu‘aimï)

Inscription 35

On the headstone of the middle cenotaph, six lines,67 80 by 95 cm.:

.3 (5 .1

LoVt stXe- .5 Yl ^ .4 jcsNf

iiiXc .5 Vl ^

[end]

Basmala and Koran, LV, 26-27; the emir, the mighty great isfahsälär, the assisted (by Allah),
of blessed memory, the fighter of the Holy War, Nâsir al-Dïn Saläli al-isläm, the intimate, ‘uddat, of
the imäm, the honor of the government, the splendor of the community, the leader of the armies of
the faithful, Alp Kutlugh Beg Abü Sa‘ïd Muhammad b. Shïrküh has passed away to Allah’s mercy
on the 29th (rest missing).

63 Most chroniclers call the son wrongly Husâm al-
Dïn ‘Umar and the father Lädjin, and know nothing
about ‘Umar, the first husband. Among them is Ibn Khal-
likän who mentions Sitt al-Sha’m {op. cit., No. 126:
Türänshäh, No. 297: Shïrküh, and No. 422: Ibn al-
Saläh), but has no biography of Husäm al-Dïn, nor of
‘Umar b. Lädjin.

64 Ibn Khallikän, op. cit., No. 422, p. 129.

65 See the remarks concerning her eunuch Shibl al-
Dawla under “Shiblïya.”

66 J.A., III (1894), 407.

67 Cf. Répertoire, IX, No. 3408.

ERNST HERZFELD

According to Ibn Khallikän’s biography of Shirküh,68 his son Näsir al-Dîn died 9 Dhu’l-
Hidjdja 581, and was transferred from Hims to Damascus, to be buried in the turba built
to receive the body of Türänshäh. The only mistake in this notice seems to be the day: 9
for 29, i.e., March 23, 1186.

Inscription 36

On the headstone of the northern cenotaph, seven lines,69 80 by 95 cm.:
sLifc[j]!^y> viLUi! .4 cXaäavJI and Kor. LV, 26-7 1-3

ctLw yLo -6 ^ äMI . ' y "• ^ >5

The deceased, the martyr, malik al-mu‘azzam Fakhr al-Dïn Türänshäh, son of the very mighty
. . . . Nadjm al-Dïn Ayyüb — Allah sanctify his tomb! — has passed away in Alexandria in Safar 575
(July, 1180) and was transported to Damascus in the year 80, and transported here in Sha‘bän 82
(October-November, 1186).

One short word like saiyid, amir is missing, regrettably, since it would tell the official
style given to the ancestor of the Ayyubids.70

Inscription 37

On the headstone of the southern cenotaph, nine lines,71 80 by 100 cm.:

w _Ci

|*Lw»Ä>. .4 iXaJLmaJI t\x ß «'»» It .3 ^ycVl ItXJC .2 _ — — .1

o^ww.’! ä-LJ s^.yài .6 u*Ai' (J-? /♦* aüJt ô^£-

.9 LjtXÄ*« iûljAyj s Jk^.0, xJJ t^4>l .8 äjUo j .7

This is the tomb of the master, the emir, the very mighty isfahsälär, the martyred warrior, of
blessed memory, Husäm al-Dïn Abu Abdallah Muhammad b. ‘Umar b. Lädpn .... he died at the eve
of Saturday, 20 Sha‘bän 587 (October 11, 1191), the praise is Allah’s alone

The young prince had built a madrasa at Aleppo; Ibn Shaddäd says that one of the four
churches, converted into mosques in 518 by the cadi Ibn al-Khashshàb, the Masdjid al-
Haddädin (“of the smiths”) was converted into a Hanafite madrasa at the time of Saladin
by his nephew Husäm al-Dïn b. ‘Umar b. Lädjin.72 Ibn Shihna adds: “He demolished the old

68 Ibn Khallikân. op. cit., No. 297, p. 120.

69 Cf. Répertoire, IX, No. 3407.

70 A curious MS in the British Museum (C. Rieu,
Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts
in the British Museum [London, 1894], No. 557): “The
Evident Advantages of the Incomparable Qualities of
the Nâsirîya, i.e., the Ayyubids, written by a son of

malik al-näsir Dä’üd b. ‘Isa b. Abi Bakr b. Ayyüb to
prove the descent of the family from Adam, gives a
protocol of sixty titles of his four ancestors; but of the
twelve attributed to Ayyüb not one is historical.

71 Cf. Répertoire, IX, No. 3448.

72 Durr, p. 83.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

building and erected a solid new one; the instruction there went on continuously till I became
director, and later handed it over to my two sons who have it still.” 73 In the tenth century it
was abandoned.

According to the inscriptions, Sitt al-Sha’m had begun to build the mausoleum at the
death of her brother Türänshäh, and it was not yet ready to receive the body in 580. Her
second husband, Näsir al-DIn, died suddenly in 581 and was the first to be interred there, then
Türänshäh. Only five years later the son by her first husband was buried beside them. The
tomb of Sitt al-Sha’m herself is not made known. All are cenotaphs, the tombs themselves
are undisturbed below, whether in the earth or in a vault.

Of the original building a simple entrance, the tank in the court, and the turba itself re-
main, perhaps also the portico between turba and tank (Fig. 115). All are of the greatest
simplicity, today disfigured by whitewash and paint.

The tomb chamber is a square of 9.6 m., with recesses 11.4 by 12.7 m., covered by a
slightly pointed cross vault, about 7.6 m. high at the summit. It springs from a low dado only
1.2 m. from the floor. The low beginning of the vault gives the room, though it is wide and
not low, the appearance of a crypt. I do not remember another mausoleum of the period
where the problem of space has been treated in this way.

The walls and the vaults are divided into panels (Figs. 116-19 ) *n stucco work. All the
framing lines are flat moldings and are accompanied, including the groins of the vault, by
capricious lines, variations of a broken arch on brackets, which may be classed among “cus-
pidated moldings.” After having studied Imäm Dür, one can simply state that they are derived
from the special style dominating the Jazira during the two preceding centuries.

The arch of the mihrab 74 and a few roundels now badly whitewashed, also the fragment
of a frieze on the north wall, of which a drawing is given in Monuments historiques, show a
more elaborate arabesque in stucco, the peculiar forms being evidently derived from the terra-
cotta arabesques of late Abbasid buildings in Baghdad.73

The Sha’mlya is not the normal type of a mausoleum at Damascus. The norm is repre-
sented by a very large number of small buildings, most of them at Sälihlya, on the slope of
Käsiyün. We saw one of them, the so-called Madrasa al-Rukniya. Some of them are remains
of larger constructions, of madrasas; some are in almost perfect condition, some have lost
their domes, many are now occupied by public offices or used as private houses and therefore
difficult of access. Van Berchem had, in 1893-94, compiled a list of most of them; we added
a few in 1914, as did Watzinger and Wulzinger and the Monuments historiques. None of the
lists is complete. The main interest in these standardized buildings, most of them with
inscriptions, lies in the field of local history. For purposes of the history of architecture, one
could choose the very best specimen. But the commonness of a certain local type may open
an insight missed when choosing one representative example only. The following are speci-

73 Ibid., p. 1 1 7.

74 Pt. II, Fig. 78.

75 Pt. I, Figs. 58-59.

ERNST HERZFELD

mens of which I have more than a short note or an inscription only, and I shall describe them
in the shortest way, leaving the classification of the type for the end.

Figs. 58-60 — Damascus, Turbat ‘Alâ al-Dïn (Sitta Sha’m al-sughrä’) 3>- >.»2

Turbat Sitt al-Sha’m al-sughrä’

(Figs. 58-60, and 120)

Turbat Sitt al-Sha’m al-sughrä’ (“Lesser Sitt al-Sha’m”) is in the quarter Sük Särüdja,
a short distance west of the “Greater Sitt al-Sha’m.” 76

Inscription 38

A slab, 53 by 65 cm., set into the wall over the pointed arch of the small door, seven lines77
of old Neskhi:

iLt tXjyg-ÄJI .5 y-yoVl HtXJlj äJuü Lo ItX® .4 Kor. LV, 26-7 (3-2) .1

iüLo .7 Ä-Ü! + .6 -AäVI

This is what the mother of the emir, the young bachelor, killed in the Holy War, £Alâ al-Dïn b.
al amïr Zain al-Dïn — Allah’s mercy upon both! — has built. In Dhu’ 1-Hidjdja 568 (July-August,
1173).

Zain al-Dïn was the honorific of Ali Kuchik b. Begtekin, governor of Mosul under Zengi,
later lord of Sindjär, Harrän, Takrit, and Irbil. At his death in 653 his sons succeeded, Nur
al-Dïn Yüsuf at Irbil, Muzaffar al-Dïn Gökbüri first at Harrän, after 586 at Irbil. Gökbüri

77 Cf. Répertoire, IX, No. 3299, taken from van Ber-
diem’s note book.

76 Sauvaget, No. 23.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

married RabLa Khâtûn, sister of Saladin and Sitt al-Sha’m. He founded the “Great Mosque
of the mountain,” Djämic al-Hanäbila in Sälihiya. The Zain al-DIn of this inscription is
probably the father of Gökbüri, the Begtekinid Ali (who died only five years before his son,
hence: “Allah’s mercy upon both! ”), and the turba was built by his wife for a young son killed
in the war.

The tomb chamber contains two secondary tombs, both uninscribed. It is a little more
than 5 m. square. Four large niches over the corners form an octagon from which the smooth
dome springs. The arch over the door inside is a pointed horseshoe, a variety more common
at Damascus at that time than elsewhere.

Turba al-Nadjmïya
(Figs. 61, i2i, <and 123 )

In the same narrow lane, opposite the “Lesser Sitt al-Sha’m.” 78

Fig. 61 — Damascus, Turbat al NadjmIya, Plan - \g%

Turba al-Nadjmiya, in the neighborhood of the Sha’miya-Husämiya, contains the tomb of
Shähänshäh [brother of Saladin and Sitt al-Sha’m], father of Farrukhshäh; of [his son] Taki al-Din
‘Umar [founder of the Ma'arra madrasa]; and of the lady ‘Udrä’, and also the tomb of malik al-
Mansur, son of Sultan Saladin, and that of Fath al-Din b. Asad al-Dîn Shîrkûh.79 (Nu‘aimi)

Year 561: death of Fath al-Din b. Asad al-Din Shïrküh, brother of Näsir al-Din [Muham-
mad, husband of Sitt al-Sha’m 1 ; his tomb is at the Nadjmiya cemetery at the side of that of his
paternal uncle Shähänshäh b. Ayyüb, in a kubba which contains four tombs; those are the two in the
middle.

Year 575: death of malik al-mansür Hasan, son of Sultan Saladin; his tomb is the southern-
most of the four under the kubba that contains the body of Shähänshäh b. Ayyüb, on the Nadjmiya
cemetery at the ‘Awniya outside Damascus. (Abü Shäma, in Kitäb al-Rawdatain )

78 Sauvaget, No. 25.

19 J. A., VI (1895), 268.

ERNST HERZFELD

Apparently, the name Nadjmiya of the cemetery is derived from the honorific of Ayyüb,
Nadjrn al-Din, because his family was buried there.

Inscription 39

On the outside, above the small door, 46 by 49 cm., seven lines of old Neskhi in small

letters:

-6 4LUJI ^*oÂ+J| .4 vilA+J! 1-3

This is the tomb of malik al-mansür Hasan b. malik al-Näsir Saläh al-Dîn Yüsuf b. Ayyüb; he
died the first of Djumädä I 575 (October 4, 1179), Allah be merciful to him!

Saladin, here, in 575, is still called Saläh al-Din, not Saläh al-Dunyä wa ’l-DIn. Al-
Mansür, who died twenty years before his father did, must have been very young, and there-
fore does not appear in the chronicles.

The building is larger than the foregoing, 6.5 m. square, and the folded dome rises above
two zones of transition, an octagon and a hexadecagon (Fig. 121 ). Traces of a frieze in plaster
(mukarnas) and of interlaced geometric ornament in blue paint are preserved in the interior.

Madrasa al-Farrukhshâhïya
(Figs. 62-65)

In the quarter Sharaf al-a‘lä or al-shamäli, “upper” or “northern Sharaf,” west of the
town.80

Madrasa al-Farrukhshâhïya, called after Tzz al-Din Far rukh shäh [b. Shähänshäh b. Ayyüb],
founded as waqf by his mother, Khutlukhair Khätün, daughter of Ibrâhîm b. Abdallah; he died in
578 and was buried in his madrasa at the upper Sharaf. in his kubba. At its side is the Amd]adiya.81
(Nu'aimi)

The biography of Far rukh shäh by Ibn Khallikän confirms this notice.

Madrasa al-Amd]adiya, at the upper Sharaf. built by malik al-muzaffar Nür al-Din ‘Umar at
the time when his father malik al-amdjad Bahrâmshâh b. Far rukh shäh b. Shähänshäh b. Ayyüb was
murdered in the där al-sa‘äda (“house of felicity”).82 (Nu‘aimi)

Malik al-Amdjad .... was buried in the madrasa of his father, at the Sharaf. Damascus.83 (Ibn
Shihna)

Farrukhshäh Dä’üd had received Baalbek — before a fief of Shams al-Din ibn al-Mu-
kaddam — from Saladin in 575. Abü Shäma states that his honorific was as well Tzz as Mu‘izz
al-Din; the inscriptions use Mu‘izz only.

Saladin confirmed the son, malik al-Amdjad, who ruled with the sovereign title madjd
al-dunyä wa’l-din, from 578 to 627 (1182-1230). Two of the large towers of Baalbek bear
his inscriptions, and his lieutenant Khutlukh built the Amdjadiya near Baalbek. In 627, after

8° w. W., No. W 4; Sauvaget, No. 24; idem, Monti- 82 J.A., III (1894), 392.

ments ayyoubides, I, 3. 83 Ibid., p. 393 (Ibn Shihna) .

81 J.A., IV (1894), 272.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

having taken Damascus, malik al-ashraf Müsä of Jazira laid siege to Baalbek and forced the
aged Amdjad to resign and to retire to Damascus, where he was murdered in 628 by one of

Inscription 40

On the lintel over the window on the northern side, four lines,84 90 by 30 cm., in small
letters:

)roÂjl »iLU! *Dt jf yJuJi .2 ZSjLJ! ibyd 1 ^ ___ , 1 Ä

Jy ^oLdf .4 sU^U sU^i (!) LjjJi^ .3

Üj 6 \Xjuv -j ~wVf

84 Cf. Répertoire, IX, No. 3381.

ERNST HERZFELD

The humble lady has ordered to found this blessed turba for her son malik al-mansür Mu'izz al-
Dïn wa’l-Dunyä (sic) Farrukhshäh b. Shähänshäh b. Ayyüb (officer), the “Näsirid”; he died i Dju-
mädä II 579 (September 21, 1183).

The larger turba, to the north, is the older one, Farrukhshàhîya; the smaller one to the
south is the later, Amdjadiya. Our surveys were made in 1914. In 1926-27, as Sauva-
get says, the monument was “ gravement mutile1'1 by being transformed into a mosque. Fig-
ures 64 and 65 give details of stucco decorations; an ornament like that over the summit
of the arches is called, when in a hanging position, “ear-pendant,” by al-Djazarl. The Monu-
ments ayyoubides reproduces parts of ornamental compositions once painted in lapis blue on
the niches under the dome. The dome itself has fallen, but was certainly the normal one, as
the smaller turba of Amdjad shows. The Farrukhshàhîya is the fully developed type of the
Damascus turba, which prevails from now on.

Fig. 64 Fig. 65

Figs. 64-65 — Damascus, Farrukhshàhîya, Two
Small Ornaments >5"

Kubbat al-Ampjad
(Figs. 124, 125, 127, and i2q) 85

On the Sheikh Abdallah mountain near Baalbek stands the domed building, erected in 596
by the emir Sàrim al-Dïn Khutlukh, al-mu£izzï al-malikl al-amdjadï, client of Farrukhshäh and
Amdjad. It is significant for Baalbek that it is built entirely in the largest free stone masonry
without mortar. Four deep, semicircular niches span the corners of the square room, and cor-
responding flat niches with one window lie in the normal axes. This octagon is crowned by a
frieze of large mukarnas, four to each side, having a cornice on the outside, and forming a
sixteen-sided figure from which springs the smooth dome of huge dressed stones, whose back
is the outer face of the cupola.

85 Publication: Baalbek, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabun-
gen, in 1898-1905, ed. T. Wiegand (Berlin, 1925), III,
Inscr. Ill (M. Sobernheim) and pp. io8f and Fig. 121,

PI. 16 (by H. Kohl and D. M. Krencker). Since the
monument had not been measured by the expedition, I
did so in 1914, but the notebook leaf has disappeared.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Tomb of Saladin
(Figs. 131 and 132 )

Outside the northern arcade of the Great Mosque.86

Saladin died 27 Safar (March 5, 1193) in the citadel of Damascus, and his body
was transferred on the ‘Ashüra day, 10 Muharram 592 (December 15, 1195), to his turba,
which his son malik al-‘aziz ‘Uthmän (of Egypt, 589-95) had founded as Madrasa al-
‘Azïzïya, in the Kalläsa quarter,87 adjacent to the exterior north wall of the Great Mosque.
The turba was “in an iwän in the western part” of that madrasa, the foundation of which had

Fig. 66 — Damascus, ‘Azïzïya, Portal

been laid by malik al-afdal Nur al-Dîn Ali b. Saladin (at Damascus, 582-92). The door of
the old Madrasa al-‘ Azïzïya existed at the time of Bourgoin 88 (Fig. 66). On the cenotaph of
Saladin was an inscription in verses, composed by his cadi al-Fädil and read by Ibn Khallikän89
in Ramadan 680:

After the date of his death:

^jùUI ^ U ybj «J ijôjli jC-g-Uf

O Allah, be satisfied with this soul and open (iftah) to him the gates of paradise! That is the last
conquest (fath) for which he hoped!

86 Sauvaget, No. 27. 88 gee hjs drawing (op. cit., I, 19).

87 Kalläsa, from kils “chalk,” called thus because mor- 8^ Ibn Khallikän, op. cit., No. 856 (Saladin), p. 85.

tar was made there when building the Great Mosque.

ERNST HERZFELD

The tomb was restored by Kaiser Wilhelm II after his visit to Damascus. The photo-
graph, Figure 132, the right side, was taken before that restoration. The body of the monu-
ment has not been considerably altered, but the decoration is new. The cenotaph that now
stands in the middle is new; the old wooden cenotaph of 592 is preserved and stands at the
side. Monuments historiques gives two drawings of its karbasi work; 90 the cenotaph deserves
a complete and good publication.

Turba al-Natïfïya, Sâlihïya91

Popular name, Bait al-Shätir; near the Hanäbila mosque.

Inscription 41

In three parts, above the pair of windows of the façade, under the cornice (decipherment
unfinished) :

soV[! j] yÿy .3 [1-2 words ?] ajj »-it [1 word] .2 [1-2 words] s a-U-*yO .1 A

Jjsdo 4UÔ — .5 [1 word].*** jväjJU (?) Jaî V (jb a-Ldi 4. aJJt ^yc a-lsclj

iuL-L^ -6 [Kor. XVIII, 29] ^J! V aJJt dULuc

jväj JsS. t-àxfaJJl ajj yuu [1 word] oiâj iü^-dl sjjo A[*iôt] B

^ îJJI

A: date of death, 8 Djumädä II 602 (January 20, 1206) ; B: founder, Muhammad b. Ali b.
Natif, seemingly not the deceased.

Simple front of a house, in good masonry, with a pair of windows, the door, a cornice,
and some of the original crenelations. The interior was inaccessible in 1914.

90 Sauvaget, Fig. 18. 91 v. B., “Plan” i; W. W., No. DN, VIII, a; not in

Sauvaget.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Madrasa al-Mu‘azzamïya 92

nnrsnnnhnnn(Snr\nAnnnKn •• V\

. •
— I » < — > i — <

Fig. 68 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, al-Mu‘azzamïya

The khàtûn, mother of the sultan malik al-Mu‘azzam, wife of al-‘Ädil, died 20 Rabl‘ I 602
(November 4, 1205), and was buried in her kubba in the Madrasa al-Mu‘azzamiya on the Käsiyün.
(Ibn al-Kathlr)

In 606, malik al-mughith Fath al-DIn ‘Umar b. al-‘Ädil was buried in the turba of his
brother al-Mu‘azzam.

Madrasa al-Mu‘azzamiya, Hanafite, at Sâlihïya, on the slope of the Käsiyün, in the neighbor-
hood of the ‘Azïzïya [of al-‘az!z Muhammad b. al-‘Ädil, brother of al-Mu‘azzam, 630], founded by
malik al-mu‘azzam ‘Isa b. ‘Adil, who was a strict Hanafite; he died in 624, the tenth year of his reign
[as sultan] at Damascus, and was buried, first, against the provisions of his will, in the citadel, then
transferred to the Käsiyün, and buried beside his mother, 1 Muharram 627 (November 20, 1229).
Ibn Khallikän says: “In his madrasa in which were the tombs of many of his brothers and rela-
tives.” 93 (Nu‘aimï)

Fig. 69 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, Building, Wulzinger and
Watzinger, DN, VIII, B

The inscription on the left window of the façade is written by a wife of al-Mu‘azzam, in
631. Malik al-djawäd Yünis in 637, malik al-näsir Dä’üd, who died of the plague in 656,

92 v. B., “Plan” c’: “femme de malik al-mu‘azzam” ; 93 J.A., IV (1894), 269 ff.

W. W., No. DN, VII, f; not in Sauvaget.

ERNST HERZFELD

and other descendants down to the beginning of the eighth century, were all buried in this ma-
drasa. Before his sultanate, al-Mu‘azzam had been governor of Damascus for al-‘Ädil, 597—
615. Seemingly, his mother, who died in 602, was the actual foundress of the turba, which
became a family mausoleum.

The building, which was not accessible, seems to be an agglomeration around a first
structure. The street front (Fig. 68) is preserved up to the crenelations. Watzinger and
Wulzinger give the picture of another turba in the next neighborhood,94 with only one window
and more ornate crenelations (Fig. 6ç).

Madrasa al-Chahàrkasïya
(Figs. 70-73) 95

Chahärkas, chärkas, Persian, means Circassian, popularly disfigured into SaraksI or sim-
ilar.

Madrasa al-Çhârkasïya or çhahârkasïya, Hanafite and Shafite, founded as waqf by Chärkas
fakhr al-din al-salâhï, containing his tomb.96 (Nu‘aimi)

Ibn Khallikän,97 calls him one of the great emirs of the Ayyubid period and mentions espe-
cially the great kaisarïya al-Çhahârkasïya he had built in Cairo. Nu‘aimi quotes Ibn Khalli-
kän as author of a passage that is not in the texts we have today: “Chahärkas left a young
son whom malik al-‘Ädil confirmed in the offices held by his father, appointing a guardian for
him; but he survived his father only a short time and died, as they say, in 607.” The date is
faulty. The guardian was Särim al-DIn Khutlubä who, according to Ibn al-Kathlr, died in 635

94 w. W., PI. 8b. 96 JA) IV (1894), 249L

95 v. B., “Plan” r; W. W., No. DN, VI, c, short descrip- 97 Ibn Khallikän. op. cit., No. 145.

tion, p. 124; Sauvaget, No. 91; idem, Monuments

ayyoubides, I, 4.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

and was buried in the kubäb chahärkas (“the domes of Çh”), which he had built for his
master, opposite the turba al-Khâtünïya on the Käsiyün.

Inscription 42

On lintel of door, four lines, 115 by 33 cm.; twice repeated with slight variants over the
windows on the street:

iüLs». .2 ^ &5pLyJ| sÂjû .1

^ .4 slÿàJ! ^•j«*^***^ -3 s <JoLs

^J»yo| jyyLc &AJ! pÄ-p ÜjL+Äaa/^ ^L«-S AXmj ^ >J0

This blessed turba belongs to the emir, the great isfahsalär, the warrior, the fighter of the Holy
War, fakhr al-din, the guardian of the frontiers of the faithful, the killer of the infidels and polythe-
ists, Ayäz Chahärkas, officer of malik al-‘Ädil and of malik al-Näsir; he died of the effects of his
having been in war, 20 Radjab 608 (December 28, 12 11).

Figs. 71-73 — Damascus, Çâlihïya, ai-Chahârkasîya

Inscription 43

Over the door in the court, five lines, 52 by 35 cm.:

^-yoVf jJj .3 fcXZ^? Jaj!^.«J! JjcLsîJI .2 jUjei f &X+, wJ .1

j*Uo &jL*JCwj ywJfc yw.»T> XÎam y»^ôl .5 ywoL»- oy-wJl .4 yw5pL^S»>

The emir, the warrior, the fighter of the Holy War, the soldier, the guardian of the frontiers,
fakhr al-din Muhammad, son of the very mighty emir fakhr al-din Chahärkas passed away on Satur-
day, 5 Diumädä II 615 (August 29, 1218) at Damascus the well guarded.

ERNST HERZFELD

This is the very young son who, with the succession, also received the honorific of his
father, “fakhr al-dïn.” Thus, Näsir al-DIn Shah, in about 1880, gave the office of minister
of finances to the son, only fifteen years old, of the deceased mustawfi al-mamälik with his
father’s title. The date in the chronicle must be corrected to 615.

Of the building (Fig. 70) a prayer hall and two domed chambers are preserved. Each
tomb chamber contains two cenotaphs, without inscription, one of them being that of Khut-
îubâ. I mentioned the knobs of these cenotaphs above (p. 25). Traces of a courtyard indi-
cate that there may have been more buildings.

Turbat Abi Abdallah al-Hasan b. Saläma
(Figs. 74, 75, and 122) 98

A. von Kremer called the eastern part of the main street of Sâlihïya, at a corner of which
the turba stands, Sük Abi Djarräs; 99 I noted, in 1930, Abl Djarsh or Djarash. This is the
popular lakab of the owner of this tomb, and may mean either “the man with the bell” or
“who keeps vigil.” Since Nu‘aimi ignores this tomb, Sauvaire makes no remarks about it.

Inscription 44

On the lintel of the window, street side, tabula ansata, five lines, small letters:

»JUf ^1 .3 ^üLcJ! cXàaJ! jüJi sjoß Kor. LV, 26-27 .1.2

Jujtif 80 A=>-

(border) .5 aJJ!

This is the turba of the humble slave, the exiled, the one that longs for the mercy of his Lord,
Abu Abdallah al-Hasan b. Saläma al Rakkï; he passed away in Muharram 610 — Allah be merciful to
him I — and after him his two sons — Allah’s mercy upon both! — The humble slave who desires the
mercy from the Lord the Beloved, the pilgrim Ahmed Mas‘üd has built it anew.

The last line rhymes: mawdüd — mascüd, but the term mawdud is chosen not only for
rhyme’s sake, but to indicate the Sufism of the writer, who took care of the construction when
death took away the two sons with their father. Sufism flourished under Nur al-Dïn and the
Ayyubids in Syria. The names al-Sâlihïya at Damascus and al-Sälihm at Aleppo mean set-
tlements of Sufis. Ibn Djubair in 286 says: “This sect of Sufis, they are the kings in that coun-
try!” The Sheikh Hasan seems to have gone around with a bell at his begging bowl, kashkül.
van Berchem transcribed his nisba “al-Zikkl”; not knowing such a place name, I prefer al-
Rakkl from Rakka. He was a gharib: Sheikh Muhammad al-Fârisî in Cairo, Ali al-Harawi

98 V. B., “Plan” i’; W. W., No. DN, IX, c; Sauvaget,

No. 93.

99 “Topographie von Damaskus, II,” Denkschr. d.
K. Akad. d. Wissensch., Wien, phil. hist. Kl.,W I (1885), 25.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

at Aleppo, and other Sufis, all call themselves gharïb, Ali al-Harawï with the pathetic words:
“This is the tomb of the exiled .... he lived far from his land and died in loneliness, without
a friend near him .... without a family to visit him. . . .”

The building is a perfect example of its type, built just after 610.

Madrasa al-Shiblïya

(Figs. 76-79) 100

Madrasa al-Shibliya, on the slope of the Käsiyün, over the Thawrä bridge; built, according to
Ibn Shaddäd, in 626, by Shibl al-Dawla Kâfür al-Husâmï, the Greek, eunuch of Husâm al-Dïn ‘Umar

Fig. 74 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, Abü Djarash
(Abdallah al-Rakkï), Cupola >0.1 3.

0 1 5 M.

Ibe ! : t

Fig. 75 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, Abü Djarash (Abdallah
al-Rakkï), Plan ID-}- 19

(sic) b. Lädjin, son of Sitt al-Sha’m. It was he that stimulated Sitt al-Sha’m to build the Sha’mlya
extra muros, and who built the Hanafite Shibllya at the side of the khänkäh for the Sufis, which had
been his house, the turba, the säbät (“vaulted passage”)? the sabil (“public fountain”), and the large

100 v. B„ “Plan” r’; W. W., No. DN, XVIII, a; Sauva-
get, No. 89, designates it as “madrasa al-Badrîya.”

‘Abd al-Bäsit adds to Nu'aimi’s description of the
Badriya: “In 740 h. the madrasa was converted into a
masdjid djärni, with waqf. Thus I saw it written on the
lintel.” And in about 1000 h. Sheikh Mahmud al-‘Adaw!
adds: “The condition of the Badriya has changed, its

roof has fallen, the traces of its walls have disappeared,
one has taken away its materials, it has become a ruin
among ruins, its waqf has been adjudicated to the ‘Great
Mosque of al-Djabal.’ i.e., the Djami* al-Hanäbila of
muzaffar Gökbüri. Any building, at present in a good
state of preservation, can scarcely be the Badriya.

ERNST HERZFELD

Fig. 78

Figs. 76-79 — Damascus, Sâlihîya, al-Shiblîya. Elevation, Section, Plan

tank, masna‘. He also opened a road from the Sha’mlya to the street ‘Ain al-Kirsh; before, one could
not go from there to the Käsiyün, but had to take the road by the Masdjid al-Safi and the ‘Ukaiba.
He died in 623. 101 (Nu'aimï)

101 J.A., IV (1894), 263.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

The date is confirmed by al-DhahabT.

These particulars fit the plan of Damascus and seem to be authentic. Shibl al-Dawla
must have entered the service of Sitt al-Sha’m after the death of Husäm al-Din, in 587.
Ibn al-Kathir calls him “great eunuch,” and al-Kasri, i.e., from the kasr, palace of Cairo,
and a Negro. Certainly, he was that and not a Greek. Ibn al-Athir 102 and Mas‘üdi103 say:
“al-Mutawakkil had called the mother of al-Mu‘tazz al-Kabiha ‘the ugly one,’ because of
her perfect beauty, as one calls a black one kaffir (‘camphor,’)” by antiphrasis.

Husäm al-DIn, son of Sitt al-Sha’m. was the master of Shibl al-Dawla Käfür al-husâmï, the
eunuch, owner of the madrasa and the khänkäh al-Shiblîya, situated outside Damascus on the road
to the Djami‘ Käsiyün, with a rich waqf, a good deed meritorious in this and the other world. He
died in 623 and was buried in his turba next to the madrasa.104 (Ibn Khallikän)

The date 626, given by Ibn Shaddäd for the foundation of the madrasa, must be a mis-
take; the easiest correction would be 616, date of the death of Sitt al-Shä’m. 105

The building, once more, is entirely typical. Parts of its original decorations in plaster
and paint are preserved. I am not sure whether the octagon and the dome are built of bricks
or of brick-shaped stones.

Madrasa al-Tzzïya al-Barrânïya

Damascus west, near the Farrukhshàhîya (cf. Fig. 56). 106

Madrasa al-Tzzïya extra muros, below the Wiräka [quarter called after a paper factory?] at the
upper Sharaf .... built in 626 by the emir Tzz al-Din Aibek, ustäd al-där, major-domo of malik al-
Mu'azzam, and his lieutenant at Sarkhad. Later he was accused of treacherous correspondence,
thrown into prison, and his properties were confiscated. He became ill, and said, fainting: “This is
the end of my life!” [meaning “must this be . . . .?”] and never talked till he died. He was buried in
Cairo, near the Bäb al-Nasr, in 646. 107 (Nu‘aimi)

Ibn Khallikän 108 says: “Aibek, mameluke of al-Mu‘azzam, received Sarkhad in 61 1
and held it till 644, when he was imprisoned in Cairo by malik al-sälih Nadjm al-Din Ayyfib
(II).” He adds that he personally attended Aibek’s funeral in 646. In 654 the remains were
transported to Damascus to be buried in the Turba al-Tzzïya.

Inscription 45

Over the door to the garden, hexagon on discharging arch with one line right, two lines

102 Ibn al-Athîr, op. cit., VII, 135.

103 Mas'ûdï, Miirüdj al Dhahab . . . ed. C. Barbier
de Meynard and A. J. B. Pavet de Courteille (Paris,
1861-77), VII, 270.

104 Ibn Khallikän. op. cit., No. 126 (Türänshäh), p.

105 See below under “Turbat Raihän.”
i°6 w. W., No. W, 5; Sauvaget, No. 33.

107 J.A., IV (1894), 269.

108 Ibn Khallikän. op. cit., No. 526 (malik al-
Mu‘azzam), p. 137.

25-

ERNST HERZFELD

left, and tabula ansata with four lines on the lintel {Fig. 80 ) ; for the irregular disposition
of the text:

Sr VM

aJJl 1 B Lc^ .3 «JJî Vl aü! V .2 äJJI dyy .1 hexag.

(2 words) C (missing, probably intended for a Une above A iSjiyll iylj sjX<aJî Kor. II, 104

^yoof .1 Tab. &JUo

ww w •£s-

»Lgiüül ïüL^y? &-U! luXtJü ^ ^cXJI ^ JoLdii! ^>! .2 ^}UJ! /^S3\

w XI XV

Jyd| Jv£^ &ÂÊ &JJî jüLOä. .4 iwäf ^,t^w |»iô*3l » >L^1 ^yc R^ääaJI^

(one expects C at the end) 2Ux> «JJI JJLiüi ^aä*av*J!j

. . . the great emir, the warrior, fighter of the Holy War, Abu’l-Fadâ’il ‘Izz al-Din Aibek b. Ali,
Allah cover him with His mercy! . . . has instituted as waqf this blessed madrasa for the juriscon-
sults and students, followers of the august imam Sirâdj al-Dïn Abü Hanïfa ... for the readers of
the Koran, the scholars of the Hadith and the hearers, . . . and that in the year 621 (1224).

Fig. 80 — Damascus, Turbat al-Tzzïya, Inscription Over Gate "£>.■> V7

The date rectifies the 626 of Nifiaimï. The door with the inscription is the only remnant
of the madrasa. The turba, without inscriptions, is in good condition.109 The fine ornamental
roundel of Figure 56 comes from the turba.

Zäwiyat Sheikh Ali al-FarIthï

{Figs. 81 and 1 33-1 34) 110

The name is differently spelled in the chronicles; Sauvaire and Sauvaget render it al-
Faranthl. Van Berchem left the reading open. I thought at first al-Karnabi, and asked Nabih

110 v. B., “Plan” 1; W. W., No. DN, V. b; Sauvaget,
No. 94.

109 Sauvaget, Fig. 24; W. W., Taf. 9.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Faris, who found the name, expressly spelled in al-Yäfi% Mirât al-Djanän: “Abu’l-Hasan
Ali, known as al-Farïthï.” 111 This Farlth is mentioned by Yäküt as a village belonging to
Wäsit, Iraq.112

Ali al-Farïthï, virtuous man, gifted with great power, miracle worker, addicted to spiritual ex-
ercises, and living as hermit. He had disciples and murïd, novices, and owned a zäwiya on the slope
of the Käsiyün. He died in Djumädä II 621, and was buried on the Käsiyün. They have built a
turba over his tomb.113 (al-Dhahabï)

Khadîdja Khätün, daughter of malik al-Mu‘azzam . . . , who died in 650, was buried in her
turba which she had built next to that of Sheikh al-Farïthï, on the Djabal. (Ibn al-‘Asäkir)

The madrasa of Khadîdja Khätün, al-Murshidïya, is contiguous, to the east, to the tomb
of al-Farïthï. Ali al-Farïthï, with his murïdïn, was a murshid, one who has the right to initiate
novices into the order; thus, his turba has more claim to be called al-Murshidïya than has that
of Khadîdja Khätün.

Fig. 81 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, Ali al-Farïthï, Window with Inscription j.

Inscription 46

On the lintel of a grilled window (Fig. 81), tabula ansata, 95 by 37 cm., five lines; a sec-
ond inscription with slight variants: ; j ; f

(5^âJ! *JJ! J! iüy>' sjje ___ .4 Kor. LXI 30-32 ,jt 1-3

.3 adJf Vl id! V .2 aJJ ävjjdl .1 Above, on quoin

This is the tomb of the humble .... the Sheikh Ali al-Farïthï b. Shahriyär — Allah sanctify his
soul! — he passed away in the second decade of Djumädä II 621 (July 1-10, 1224).

The dome, with the usual inner arrangement and decoration, is still surmounted by its
original globe and crescent of copper.

111 Hyderabad, 1339, IV, 48E

112 Yäküt, op. cit., IV, 889.

113 J A., IV (1894), 279.

ERNST HERZFELD

Där al-Hadïth al-Ashrafïya al-Mukaddasïya

(Figs. 133-34 ) 114

Contiguous, to the east, of the Murshidiya (Khadidja) and separated by a narrow lane
from the Atâbekïya to the east.

Dâr al-Hadïth al-Ashrafïya al-Mukaddasïya, on the slope of the Käsivün, at the bank of the
Nahr Yazid, opposite the turba of the vizier Takî al-Dïn al-Takriti, east of the Murshidiya, and
west of the Atâbekïya, built by malik al-ashraf Muzaffar al-Dïn Müsä b. al-‘Ädil for the häfiz
Djamâl al-Dïn Abdallah b. Surür al-Mukaddasï, who died before the school was finished.115
(Nu'aimï)

The locality is exactly indicated. There was another dâr al-hadïth of the same name in
town, mentioned by Ibn Khallikän, built for Sheikh ‘Uthmän b. al-Saläh.116

Inscription 47

On the lintel of the door, street side, 125 by 38 cm., four lines:

JolaJ! |JLaJ| ^liuLJi .2 JlaS &.UI 8 B M mmm „ l

£■ m ^ ^

UU>w .3 jÂ \ûjO O^Cwôl viLL*J| I

j G§-vTc. uÂS^117v:^aa3!^*J! «AjLoLI J^s. &I4-! aJJ! JIäj Oy-?!

w 1a ^ _c-

*“^'w (Î pLü/JG 118

.... the lord, the sultan, erudite, just, victorious, assisted (by Allah) the victor, malik al-ashraf
Muzaffar al-Dïn Abu’l-Fath Müsä, son of the lord, the sultan malik al-‘Ädil Saif al-Dïn Abï Bakr b.
Ayyüb has founded as a waqf this blessed madrasa .... for the Hanbalites that are guests there, and
he has given as waqf to it the half of Dair Ar‘â in the Bikâ‘a al-‘Âzïzï, and a quarter (?) and its field,
in the year 634.

Turba al-Takrïtïya

(Figs. 82, 83, 107, 136-38) 119

At a street comer, northwest, exactly opposite the Dâr al-Hadïth al-Ashrafïya, south-
west; the southeast corner is the Atâbekïya, called Bâb al-Sùk, “bazaar gate.”

No Inscriptions

114 v. B., “Plan” n; W. W., No. DN, V, f ; not in Sauva-
get.

115 J.A., HI (1894), 273.

116 Ibn Khallikän, op. cit., Nos. 422 and 759.

117 Or al-wäridln, al-muwäfidin? Sauvaire, (in J.A.
Ill (1894), 294, n. 25) translates “qui viennent à
Damas,” cf. Jérusalem, n. 64: ‘alä al-fukarä’ al-wäridin
li-ziyärat al-Kuds.

118 Dair Ar‘ä, not Bizä'a (Sauvaire); Sauvaire trans-
lates the following words by “et tous les points culmi-
nants”: but mazäri‘hä is clear; rb", ry” might be a name,
but rather wa-rub‘an, “and a quarter,” in parallel with
nusf, “half.”

’“«v. B., “Plan” 0; W. W., No. DN, V, d; Sauvaget,
No. 105.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Turba al-Takrïtlya, in the bazaar of al-Sälihlya, is the turba of Sheikh Takï al-Bin b. al-
sähib [son of the vizier] Abu’l-Bakä ibn Muhädjir al-Takritï.”120 And “Dar al-Hadïth al-Ashrafïya,
opposite the turba of the sâhib Takï al-Dïn al-Takritï. 121 (Nu'aimï)

This location proves, as the Monuments historiques accepts, the anepigraph building to
be the Takrïtïya, but not at all that it ought to be dated according to the first paragraph of
Nu‘aimï: “Takï al-Dïn . . . .buried there in 698, at the age of about seventy-eight years.”
For Nu‘aimï goes on, quoting first Nadjm al-Dïn b. Säbik [unknown to me] :

Ibn Muhäd]ir [would in this context be Ali] came to Damascus [from Takrit, like Saladin] and
settled in a house at the ‘Akabat al-Kattän [‘akaba is a road with high gradient] .... he gave many
alms and began buying estates for waqfs .... he had agreed with my father to pave that street, and
said: Come tomorrow and get the money for it! In the evening, al-Ashraf sent him a bunch of
violets; he took it and smelled it — that was his death. The next morning he was dead. With a thou-
sand dirham, to the account of the estate, they bought a turba for him at the Sük of al-Sâlihïya.

Then, “Sheikh Shams al-Dïn122 says: ‘A certain time after [what?], the vizier Takï
al-Dïn b. Ali ibn Muhädjir al-Takrïtï built five shops in the walls of the turba; he pretended
to be his [whose?] cousin-german.’ ” Apparently, the passage is taken out of the original
context and ought to follow the next passage: “According to Abu’l-Muzaffar ibn al-Djawzï
the estate of the sâhib Kamäl al-Dïn was evaluated at 300,000 dinars (gold). Al-Ashraf

showed me a chaplet of a hundred pearls, each the size of a pigeon’s egg, from his estate.
He died 1 Djumädä II 634” (January 30, 1237).

The vizier Kamäl al-Dïn, son of the sharïf Mu'in al-Dïn, was one of the illustrious saiyids of
his time; his great wealth permitted him not to seek pecuniary rewards from the government. ... He
died on a Friday, while prostrating himself at the morning prayer. (al-Küsï)

120 J.A., VI (1895), 230U

121 J-A., III (1894), 273.

122 The same, quoted in the next passage as Abu
’l-Muzaffar al-Djawzi. viz. Shams al-Dïn Abu ’l-Muzaffar
Yüsuf Sibt ibn al-Djawzi, author of the Mir’ ât ai-
Zamän, born in Baghdad 582, died at Damascus in

654 h. Sibt ibn al-Djawzi was the grandson, by his
mother, of the still more famous ‘Abd al-Rahmän ibn
al-Djawzi al-Bakri, of Baghdad, descendant of the Caliph
Abu-Bekr; hence his intimacy with malik al-Ashraf (cf.
Ibn Khallikân. op. cit., No. 378).

ERNST HERZFELD

Evidently, the Ibn Muhädjir of Nadjm al-DIn is the Kamäl al-Din of ibn al-Djawzi,
his proper name was not Ali, else Taki al-Din would be his son and could not pretend to be
his cousin. Evidently, too, there are two Ibn Muhädjirs, Kamäl and Taki al-Din, the second
a shady figure, whose biography Sauvaire quotes from al-Dhahabi, Sakkä‘i, and Taghriberdi.
He was born in 620 and died in 698, his long life being a continued change between premier-
ship and prison, typical for the Mameluke period. But since Sibt ibn al-Djawzi died in 654,
the date 634 of the death of Kamäl al-Din is right, and the malik al-Ashraf cannot be — as

0 5o 1 Jn

Fig. 83 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, al-Takrïtïya, Mihrab and Window 15-IS5

Sauvaire has it — the Mameluke Saläh al-Din Khalil (689-93), but the Ayyubid Müsä, 626-35.
It wmuld have been unnecessary for al-Ashraf to poison a man seventy-eight years old. And
the turba was bought, not built, for Kamäl al-Din. The fact that the building has no inscrip-
tion again confirms the story. “To the account of the estate” seems to imply that he had no
direct heirs, and, combined, the notes seem to impute legacy hunting to Taki al-Din.

Thus, the building must have existed before 634 without being used, for reasons un-
known; in 698 Taki al-Din, the vizier, was also buried in it. But the name al-Takritiya re-
fers to Kamäl al-Din. The construction permits two periods to be distinguished, demanding

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

these dates: first third and very end of the seventh century. Al-Sakkä£i adds that the turba
was burned during the occupation of Damascus by the Tatars in 699.

The entrance is a fine example of Ayyubid mukarnas vaulting (my photograph was
lost) ; over the windows on the street are decorative discharging arches in good Ayyubid
style; the windows themselves, those to the left, show the typical early Ayyubid arrangement
for shutters receding, when opened, into the thickness of the wall. The entrance leads into a
hall covered with two cross vaults, and this to a larger, square room, the tomb chamber to

the right, and to a smaller oblong room to the left. Figure 82 shows the rather exceptional

detail of the transition zone over the tomb chamber: realistic conchs with varying little
ornaments at the summit, an idea as archaic as the detail; its archaism precludes the date
698 and is not easy to explain even in 634.

The south side of the prayer hall shows the fine masonry of its walls without coating;
it includes a mihrab with a round window over it (Fig. 83). The double quatrefoil around
that window is closely connected with the marquetry works of the Aleppo school all dated
between 569 and 650 (at the latest). This side of the room belongs to the first period of the
building, not later but rather before 634.

The three other sides are plastered and richly ornamented (Figs. 136-38 ). Watzinger

and Wulzinger and Sauvaget stress, with reason, the maghrebine character of these orna-

ments. Replicas of the great bands of inscription, with their chain frames and the roundels
that separate the parts, occur in Cairo in the mausoleum of Shadjar al-Durr, 648 h., of Zain
al-Din Yusuf, 697, and of Salär and Sandjar al-Djawli, 703. 123 The decoration was certainly
added when Takï al-DIn was buried in the turba, which had been bought, an existing build-
ing, for Kamäl al-Din in 634. One cannot expect to find literary evidence connecting Takï
al-Din with the Maghreb. But Ibn Djubair says that there were many Maghrebines living
in the Zäwiyat al-Maghäriba, an institution richly endowed, and there must have been many
of them a hundred years later. The decoration has found no imitation at Damascus and re-
mains an isolated, spontaneous transplantation. The style does not agree with the spirit of
Ayyubid architecture and decoration.

Turbat Dä’üd b. Aidekin

(Figs. 84-85 ) 124

I checked van Berchem’s exact copy of the inscription, on a tabula on the lintel over the
door, 100 by 40 cm., seven lines, dated 634, without taking a new copy, and I did not search
for Dä’üd b. Aidekin in the chronicles. He cannot be £Alä al-Din Aidekin al-bundukdär al-
sälihi, called after malik al-sälih Nadjm al-Din Ayyüb of Egypt (637-47), and owner of the
mameluke Baibars, later Sultan Baibars al-bundukdäri al-sälihi.

Figure 84 shows the façade, built in good masonry, with the tabula over the door and
with four antique windows, perforated slabs of basalt — imperishable objects which are often
reused in Muhammedan buildings.

123 M. van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus In- 124 v. B., “Plan” o’; W. W., No. DN, XI, b, PI. 7 a;

scriptionum Arabicarum, I, Egypte, Mém. mission arch. not in Sauvaget nor in Nu'aimT.
franç. au Caire, XIX (1894-1903), 160 and PI. XXVI.

Ö2

ERNST HERZFELD

Masdjid al-Tasht-dàr AL-SÀLIHÎ
(Fig. 139 ) 125

Only part of the wall of the façade and the inscribed slab on it seem to remain. An oc-
tagonal slab decorated with a circular dish, 72 cm. in diameter, having a border in the shape
of a knotted fillet, 9 cm. broad; inscription 126 in seven lines.:

&UI Aaä J,Uj aJJl J,! .3 jA&xi ! tUaJ! tjc£> oJka. .2 . . . .1

(J-yCli; .6 qjm iLLm J;LJf ^Lôxjj jçà 3 .5 ^ Lo.il t5XUl;bc^kl| «JUI .4

sJ .7 2s»Ut JuÄj'

.... the humble .... Abdallah the tasht-där of malik al-sälih has built anew this masdjid, in the
month . . . Ramadan 637 (April, 1240).

Littman follows Quatremère’s explanation in translating tasht-där by “Verwalter der
Kleider- und Waffenmagazine.” But that office comprised different things and, originally,
tasht = Avestic tasta, qualified by “of gold, silver, bronze,” or “for drinking,” is a dish or flat
bowl, and the unusual shape of the inscription represents such a dish. Hence, tasht-där is
almost a synonym of the more common djämdär, “cup-bearer.”

Turbat Raihän
(Figs. 86 and 106) 127

Inscription 48

On the lintel of a grilled window, on the façade, tabula ansata, 150 by 40 cm., five
lines, in strikingly bad style:

Lines 1-3 basmala and Koran or Hadith, then

JjLtJl viLLj! pJcunJf JwUI (Jb** &L’I ,jLs^ -4 Jj ^üûUf A-wdl äby» .3

<X».| Lu« 3 x+sy .5 JjIäJI dLLJI yyti ! dLUJI o^smJI aJJf

This is the turba of the humble . . . Raihän b. Abdallah, freedman of malik al-Mu'azzam b.
malik al-‘Ädil, .... known as Lälä (tutor) of malik al-'AzIz b. malik al-'Ädil .... he built it in 641
(1243-44).

Malik al-£azlz ‘Uthmän did not reign; his elder brother al-Mu‘azzam ascended the
throne in 615.

Year 615: malik al-mu'azzam ‘Isa charged Badr al-Din Hasan b. al-Däya with the inspection,
nizära, of the turba al-Badriya, called after him, situated opposite the Shibliya at the bridge over the
Thawrä, now called the Kuhail bridge.128 (Ibn al-Kathir)

Madrasa al-Badriya, opposite the Shibliya, at the Djabal, near the Kuhail bridge; was built in

125 Next to v. B., “Plan” i; W. W., No. DN, IX, d; not
in Sauvaget nor in Nu'aimi.

126 Published by E. Littmann in W. W., p. 134. Cor-
rect tasht-där written in two words instead of one, and

takabbala instead of fa-kabala.

127 v. B., “Plan” g; W. W., No. DN, II, c; not in Sau-
vaget.

128 J A., IV (1894), 293, n. 5.

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Figs. 84-85 — Damascus, Sälihiya, Turbat Aidekin, Front and Antique Windows

638 by Badr al-Din Lälä b. ai -Ddya [tutor, son of the wet nurse], one of the emirs of Nür al-Dïn. 139
(Nu‘aimi)

The foster brother of malik al-‘Ädil Nür al-Dïn — I am convinced one cannot have
more than one — was Madjd al-Dïn Abü Bakr Muhammad, well known in the history of
Aleppo, who died in 565 h. There is a double mistake in the statement: a building existing
in 615 cannot have been built in 638 by a man who died in 565, and the mistake must be
caused by the rare attributes ‘Tutor and foster brother.” The lälä of the inscription bears no
honorific in din, but in view of the coincidence of the dates, 615, the assumption imposes
itself that the founder of the tomb got the title “badr al-din” with the appointment as
tutor, lälä, to the sultan’s minor brother, and that both are the same person. As freedman
of malik al-Mu‘azzam he had certainly been mameluke of al-Ädil, hence an ‘ädili like the
ibn al-däya of Nür al-Dïn, and even may have been an ibn al-däya, foster brother of al-
mu‘azzam Tsä.

Turba al-Hâfizîya
(Figs. 146-49 ) 130

No Inscriptions

The turba al-Hâfizïya with the masdjid it contains [we should say: the masdjid and the tur-
ba....], south of the Kuhail bridge and north of the turba al-Kaimariya on the Shibli road to
Sälihiya, was a garden belonging to Yâküt, black slave of TakI al-Dïn al-Kindï, bought (from him)
by Arghun al-hâfizïya, freedwoman of malik al-‘Ädil. She was very rich. Her surname refers to
malik al-Häfiz, lord of Kakat Dia‘bar [on the Euphrates, above Rakka], whom she had brought up.
Malik al-sälih Ismafil hated her implacably and took away from her, among other valuables, four

130 v. B., “Plan” s’; W. W., No. DN, XIX; Sauvaget,
No. 101.

129 Ibid., p. 244.

ERNST HERZFELD

hundred cases with money. She died in 648 and was buried in her turba. She gave large waqfs to
that turba and to the masdjid she had founded.131 (Nu'aimi)

The building clearly has had two periods of construction and a repair of its northeastern
wall. The turba came first and then the masdjid, but both belong to the same epoch. Without
knowing the story, I should separate them in time.

The turba is of the canonical type. The masdjid follows in principle, on a very small
scale and reduced in detail, the cruciform plan, a prayer hall replacing the main ïwân. The
court, under 5 m. square, was vaulted over as in the Rukniya.

The main feature of the small building is its entrance (Figs. 146-48). A bay, deeper
than broad, about three to two, is covered by a cloister vault, decorated with a large conch in the
background. The ribs of this conch stretch over the whole vault and form a lobed arch at
the front. This motif occurs again from that time onward. It clearly demonstrates the orig-
inal connection between conch and lobed arch.

Madrasa al-Murshidîya, or Khadïdja khätün
(Figs. 87, 109, 133-34) 132

Madrasa al-Murshidlya, on the Nahr Yazld at al-Sälihiya, next to the Dar al-Hadith al-Ashra-
fiya, built by the daughter of malik al-mu‘azzam ‘ïsâ b. malik al-‘Ädil, in 654 (error for 650). 133
(Nu‘aimi).

The proper name of the princess, full sister of malik al-näsir Dä’üd, was Khadidja. (Ibn Shuhba)

Al-Näsir succeeded his father in 624, but was deposed in 626 by his uncle al-ashraf
Müsä; he died in 656.

She was married by proxy to the Khwärizmshäh; she died in the garden of the Märidäniya in
Djumädä II 650 (March-April 1252), and was buried in the turba she had built near that of Sheikh
Ali al-Farithi. (Ibn al-'Asäkir)

Inscription 49

On the lintel of the door, tabula ansata, 162 by 41 cm., four lines:

0^0! Lx — — — *.L* ■'

^x tX-H cjLu« JjIaJ! ^Lb I m*JI

, , o 9 &

^X \J***^} 1^*“ fjM £j|

^x^ v&dj" V«A&x ^x jLw»fr .4 «XïLâJ! (^L^ 2c*o^j LiAj syixlf

ëJoM (sic) p-g-w!

ââï!^ &UI jjxim+à

133 J. A., IV (1894), 278-79.

131 JA., VI(i895), 235-36.

132 v. B., “Plan” m; W. W., No. DN, V. c; Sauvaget,

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

.... this is what the majestic lady Tsmat al-Din Khadïdja Khâtûn, daughter of the Sultan malik al-
mu'azzam Sharaf al-Dîn !ïsâ, son of the Sultan malik al-‘Ädil Saif al-Din Abü Bakr d. Ayyüb, has
constituted as waqf, namely: of the bath al-Ka’s nia (so and so much), of the Tarab mill (so much), a
house at Sâlihîya, part of the Kasr Taki al-Din, part of the village Taza, part of the Khan al-‘Ätika,
part of al-Karnäbiya, the garden of the Märidäniya in toto, and that (was executed) in Dhuf’l-
Ka‘da or Hidjdja] 650 .... (January-February, 1253).

Khadïdja Khâtûn was probably the daughter of ‘Aziza, foundress of the Märidäniya.
There is no apparent reason for the name Murshidlya of her madrasa (cf. pp. 56-57 under
al-Farlthl), unless she had herself entered the Sufi order.

The plan is irregular because it lies on the hooked street. Beside the entrance a prayer
hall and a tomb chamber remain, with a square minaret raised on a block of masonry between
these two adjacent rooms. The door from the entrance to the prayer hall has an unusual
bracket (Fig. 87), and both the mihrabs preserve remains of their original plaster decora-
tion.

Fig. 86 — Damascus, Sâlihîya, al-
Raihânïya, Tambour

Fig. 87 — Damascus, Sâlihîya, al-
Murshidïya (Khadïdja Khâtûn).
Bracket

Not counting the tombs in larger madrasas, these are twenty examples of small Ayyubid
turbas — actually there may be twice as many — dated between 548 and 654 h. With the ex-
ception of the Sha’mlya-Husämlya, they not only belong to one type, but are stereotyped.

At Aleppo there are many tombs in madrasas larger than those at Damascus, but only
one that is merely a turba, popular name Sheikh Sälih, tomb of a wife of Saladin and of her
son, malik al-afdal Nur al-Dîn Ali, built in 621 h. as an addition to an already existing,
slightly larger turba; together, they are a family mausoleum of that branch of the Ayyubids.
From Ibn Shihna’s list of turbas in his description of Aleppo it seems that the single turba
became general after the Ayyubid period only, and that the present condition is not due
merely to the chance of survival, but to a difference in fashion between Aleppo and Damas-
cus, natural and of no great importance. The turba of Saladin’s wife and, with very few
exceptions, all turbas in Aleppo use the kind of dome normal for prayer halls: a smooth cupola
with or without small windows at the springing line, over pyramidal pendentives. This type,

133a in the Arabic text the alif has been accidentally omitted. ED.

ERNST HERZFELD

as discussed above, is of western origin. The use of a different vault indicates another differ-
ence in fashion, not a deep one, between the two towns.

The Damascus type is soon described: a square room with flat, arched recesses in the
four walls; four niches, semicircular in plan, over the corners, corresponding flat niches with
a pair of small windows over the normal axes, together forming an octagonal zone of tran-
sition; above it, a drum of sixteen smaller niches, equal in size, alternatingly open with a
little window or closed, segment-shaped, and decorated with a conch, the former over the
axes, the latter over the corners of the octagon; at last the dome, smooth or with sixteen ribs
over this sixteen-sided figure.

Either the dome alone, or the transition zone and drum too, are built in brick or brick-
shaped stones; only at Baalbek the dome is made of huge ashlar blocks.134 The structure be-
low is always of stone, the quality of the masonry in relation to the sum which could be spent
on it. The exterior is sometimes, the interior always, plastered and simply decorated ; rectangu-
lar frames surround all niches; rather baroque curved moldings accompany the arches of the
niches of the octagon — an import from Jazira — and, probably to be generalized, some rosettes
and arabesque friezes in plaster decorate the walls below, some richer floral compositions, in
blue paint on whitewash, the large niches of the octagon; both decorations are an import
from Baghdad.

The two oldest turbas, the Mukaddamiya and that of ‘Ala al-DIn (568 h.), are the
only ones to which this description does not apply (for the Mukaddamiya see Pt. I, 14). In
the turba of ‘Alâ al-Din the octagon has no windows, and its proportions are visibly higher
than elsewhere; there is no drum of sixteen niches over the octagon, instead of that four small
windows are at the springing line of the dome, over the diagonal axes; there is no plaster
decoration at all.

This is certainly a more archaic type and shows from what the peculiar Ayyubid type
was derived; but it does not date its “invention.” For it is a mere chance that this tomb of
568 still exists, and its simple type continues, e.g., in the shrine of Suhaib Rümï, Damascus-
Maidän, and in the madrasa-turba of malik al-zähir Baibars, dated 678 h., and it existed
long before: the Seljuk repair of the Kubbat al-Nasr in the Greek mosque of the Umay-
yads, which is a large specimen of this type, is certainly a very close imitation of the original
structure of al-Walid, and that was the prototype imitated in Egypt, Kairouan, and Tunis.

It belonged to pre-Islamic Syria and had spread into Egypt. In the Archäologische
Reise 135 I compared some pre-Islamic examples: basilica of Rusäfa, northern Syria, in
the towers of the pastophoria; Alahan Monastyr, Isauria,136 over the center of the nave;
Dair al-Ahmar, the “Red Monastery,” Zohäg, Egypt.137 In these examples full columns are
put on brackets against the walls; with their arch they frame a small niche, semicircular in plan.

134 But compare the Mukaddamiya at Damascus.

135 F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise im
Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet (Berlin, 1 91 1-20), PI. XXII.

136Headlam calls it Koja Kalesi; my unpublished,

detailed measurements and photographs are, inaccessible
to me, with Samuel Guyer in Switzerland.

137 Further example: Häh in the Tür ‘Abdïn (Sarre
and Herzfeld, op. cit., II, 10 and 345).

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

A fine specimen of this variety was in the northwest room of Mashhad al-Husain,13S Aleppo,
built under malik al-‘aziz Muhammad in 6 13-34, 139 now blown up along with the rest of the
building.

S. Guyer remarks: “ Solche Nischen dürfen wir niemals mit Trompen oder ähnlichen
Konstruktionen verwechseln, wie solche z.B. in den persischen Palästen Vorkommen.” 140 He
calls them “vielmehr eine Konstruktion, deren Motive ganz in den Rahmen der syrischen
Architektur des scl.VI (p.Chr.) passen ... in ihrer statischen Funktion nicht mit den mit
primitivem Kuppelbau innig zusammenhängenden Trompen verwandt, sondern mit hölzer-
nen Dachstuhlsäulen.” Indeed, all these examples, including the Umayyad ones, were not
destined to carry vaulted domes, but wooden roofs, whether pyramidal or spherical.

Aside from the peculiar condition of the Syrian hinterland, in Syria wood was through-
out antiquity the specific material for ceilings. There the famous cedars of the Lebanon grew
so numerous that they not only satisfied all local needs, but were exported to Assur and
Babylon, Syria and Persepolis. Antique Syria had no use for vaults. The slow transition to
vaulting marks the progress of deforestation, the gradual disappearance of the forests.

The cedars of the Lebanon were also the material that enabled the Phoenicians to de-
velop their shipbuilding, and the great Syrian domes of Bosra, Jerusalem,141 Damascus, all
of wood, constructed as double cupolas with an elaborate system of girders and ribs, are
the result of experience acquired in shipbuilding and transposed into architecture. They
are typically Syrian. This origin, the ribs of a ship, is still reflected in the preference of
fluted domes in Syria; for taste is inherited habit. When in the early Middle Ages the for-
ests were completely exhausted, masons educated in antique tradition had mastered the
problems of vaulting in stone. It does not mean much, whether a vault in medieval Syria is
carried out in ashlar, rough stone, or brick; the ideal, the original conception is in stone ma-
sonry, as a confrontation of the Kubbat al-Amdjad at Baalbek or the Mukaddamlya at Da-
mascus, and of the other Damascus domes reveals.

Thus, the Damascene octagonal transition zone under the fluted dome belongs to abo-
riginal wood structure and in its origin has nothing to do with the Iranian squinch, however
similar they look, and whatever other qualities they may share.

For instance, the niches over the corners are actually arches, bridges; they could all be
open. The niche is only a thin filling without structural value. And since the octagon is in-
scribed into the square below, the thin wall of the niches does not completely cover the dia-
gonal distance; a small hole remains over the corner, and that is why all domes have a tiny
cell, differently shaped, under the corner niches. This detail looks meaningless, but is indis-
pensable.

When describing the Sasanian fire temple near Baza’ür, I mentioned the same defect

138 See Pt. II, Fig. 59. ture (Oxford, 1940), II, no, Fig. 100; Dussaud, Des-

139 Photographs, sections, plan in MS, “Alep,” Ma- champs, and Seyrig, op. cit., PI. 103.

tériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum; a 140 Sarre and Herzfeld, op. cit., II, 10.

photograph in K. A. Creswell, Early Muslim Architec- 141 E. Herzfeld, Mshattä, Hïra and Bâdiya, “Jahrb.

d. preuss. Kmstslg., XLII (1921), 119-22, Figs. 4 and 5.

ERNST HERZFELD

there. And when speaking of the Sasanian dome in general, I explained how its entire
weight always rests on eight points, angles of a virtual octagon inscribed into the square.
Thus, the four corner niches of the Damascus domes transmit the whole weight of the dome
on the same eight points. Yet there is no filiation between the two. The fundamental differ-
ence is that the Iranian dome knows no corner support beneath the springing line. The niche
of the octagon is more closely related to the dissimilar pendentif than to the squinch that it
resembles.

Behind these researches in provenance and essence of vaults stands a greater problem,
greater because its effect reaches farther: the pointed arch which is, of course, the norm of
all these vaults and which, in Europe, became an essential feature of Gothic, distinguishing
it externally from Romanesque. This change coincides temporally with the period of the
oriental monuments studied here.

Detail may catch the interest of a research scholar to a degree that he seems to have,
and may have, lost his way. But there is a scale for interest: the relation of the study to the
understanding of ourselves and our time and, since every present is the effect of the forces
of its past, of our past. There is also a scale for importance: neither is every object of an-
tiquity important, nor anything good because it is old. On the contrary, like new things,
most old things are unimportant and bad. Important are only those the effectiveness of
which does not end with themselves, but goes on producing effect, just as the significant his-
torical events are not those that impressed the contemporaries, but those of which the conse-
quences appear later. The effectiveness may be expansive, but its intensity may be the
greater quality.

These are historical problems, and the historical forces themselves and the way they
work are the same whether they deal with man or with his product, art. There has been for
a long time a manifest interest in the discovery of the ogive, this pithecanthropus of medieval
art, and “the missing link”; specimens older than any in Europe had been discovered in Per-
sia. Their mere existence, however, is of no importance.

The pointed arch existed during the earliest period of Islam though its predominance
was not yet decided in the middle of the third century h. For instance, the Great Mosque of
al-Dja‘fariya, Samarra North (al-Mutawakkil, 246 h. [860 a.d.] ), has roundhead, semi-
circular arches throughout, but the Djawsak al-Khâkânï, 221 h. (836 a.d.), has pointed
arches. When we opened, in 1911, the huge vaults under the Kasr al-‘Äshik (or Ma'shük),
built between 260 and 265 h. (873-78 a.d.), the foreman pointed out to me the scarcely vis-
ible groin saying: “You can see the suture of the skull!” These pointed arches in brick are
clearly derived from, and a variety of, the Iranian elliptic arch in pebble and mortar. When
a high elliptic arch is built over a narrow span, the pointed shape is almost inevitable, e.g.,
Gertrude Bell called “pointed” some arches in the long corridors of the basement of Kasr-i-
Shirîn (Khusrau II) that I should call elliptic.

Panta rhei, or with Plato: “The objects of this world, which our senses perceive, have
no real being: they always become, they never are.” And for historical studies we must train

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

our eyes to see the objects not as individuals, but as passing phases of their type, as a mo-
mentary stop in a continuous movement, or as the effect of past causes and as causes of future
effects. Like geometry and history, objective description belongs to the trivium, as prelim-
inary work. One is free to choose from what point to give a thing a new name. A pointed
arch is high crowned. All Iranian arches are high crowned. The difference is one of mere
form and, in the beginning, almost imperceptible. It is a matter of terminology: shall we
name the objects by reasons of form or of function?

Everything exists before it is invented — once one neglects certain highly individual
qualities and includes it into a wider notion: pointed under high-crowned. Such variations
may and do appear in art as in nature, everywhere and at any time. But they remain unim-
portant, unhistorical, as long as they are ineffective. Their existence means nothing, their ef-
fectiveness everything. Evidently, the new name should be given only at the moment they
become functional and effective.

In the introduction to his Geschichte des Altertums 142 Eduard Meyer says:

Für das Verständnis eines geschichtlichen Prozesses ist es von wesentlicher Bedeutung, neben den
positiven Tatsachen auch diejenigen zu erkennen und zu beurteilen, die man als negative Erschei-
nungen bezeichnen kann, d.h. die Tatsache dass ein Ereignis oder eine Wirkung, die innerhalb der
allgemeinen Bedingungen der Analogien liegt, in dem gegebenen Falle nicht eingetreten ist ... . Die
Gründe .... führen vielfach in die tiefsten Probleme des geschichtlichen Lebens überhaupt, und
lehren 143 uns den Charakter einer Kultur, einer Epoche, eines Volks erfassen, wenn eine politische,
soziale, literarische, künstlerische Entwicklung, die man nach allen Analogien erwarten würde, nicht
eingetreten ist.

When discussing the dome on spherical pendentives,144 1 have drawn its theoretical coun-
terpart in Sasanian high-crowned arches. Such a vault would comprise in itself the whole
Gothic art of vaulting. With insignificant modifications, it is applicable to every shape of
room, without ever losing its statical advantages. There is no solution of a problem by
the Gothic masterbuilders that is not latent in this design. Not that the arch is ogive, but
that its height is independent of its span, that it is high crowned, is the essential point, neg-
lecting for the moment the question of material, and assuming brick or pebble.

That design is purely theoretical. The Iranian builders did not comprehend the advan-
tage of their high-crowned arch over the semicircular, did not understand the hidden qualities
of the tool they had in hand. They went on, for many hundreds of years, building their ellip-
soids in pebble and mud and that was the reason why the great chance was not taken. Noth-
ing good can come from bad material. The incentive immanent to stone was lacking, and none
of the frail germs came to maturity.

In the Mediterranean world a corbeled dome of ellipsoid shape existed in remote an-
tiquity. At a very early period the principle of true vaulting with centripetal stones was dis-

uns erfassen, wenn ” but: “wenn nicht ein-

getreten sind, lehrt das uns erfassen.”

144 pt. II, Fig. 24.

142 2d ed., I, 1, 204.

*43 Difficult phrase: Not: die Gründe lehren

7°

ERNST HERZFELD

covered and, together with primitive corbeling, the high-crowned arch was forgotten. Later,
aesthetic postulates, result of centuries of habit, demanded the circular arch, and, the high-
crowned arch being unknown, its advantages unimaginable, the pointed arch could never
have been invented in the West. Invention is application in a new way of a thing one has.
Negative facts, indeed, give a deep insight.

The coexistence of, and the hesitation between, round and pointed arches at Samarra,
beside the ellipsoid, the horseshoe, the stilted, and other forms of arches at Ukhaidir, Cairo,
and North Africa, show that there was no coercion, no necessity to choose the one or the other.
There may have been technical advantages or customs — some scholars stress methods of cen-
tering— that made people in different regions prefer one to the other. Such technical reasons
have been much discredited since the time of Alois Riegl; indeed, the great works are mostly
produced by overcoming them. All that is not a real necessity.

Only two centuries later, the pointed arch — especially the one called ‘adjamâna, whose
summit is the intersection of tangents to its lower parts — is the only one used in Persia and
wherever Persian influence dominates. All buildings are of sundried or baked bricks, very
rarely of undressed stone. There, too, one does not see a real necessity, and it would be easy
to transpose most Persian buildings from major into minor key, from ogive into ellipsoid.
Purely aesthetic principles dominate the planning of Persian buildings to the neglect of prac-
tical considerations, so that taste alone may have caused the general acceptance of the
pointed arch; or the Persian architects followed a movement victorious in another region of
the Muslim world.

Only under very special conditions is the adoption of the pointed arch full of purport,
import, and effect: in a land where other means of roofing fail and vaulting is enforced,
where stone masonry and its complement, the semicircular arch, are traditional, where the
limitations of that arch disenable it to fulfill the required tasks, and where the high-crowned
arch could be seen.

The semicircle of equal, centripetal stones is the form natural — the ellipsoid arch abso-
lutely contrary — to stone masonry, because one cannot cut in different shape every single stone,
or, if the architects would be content with an approximation, many small groups of stones.
The pointed is the only high-crowned arch that can be cut into equal stones. Variations at
the summit, effecting a more flowing curve, are easy to achieve. Therefore, as long as it
is made in bricks and pebble, the pointed arch remains a variety only of the elliptic, and only
when made in stone does it become a necessary form, only then is it functional and important.

The land where that happened can only have been Syria of all provinces of Islam. Every
single historical phenomenon originates from the intersection of chains of causes, action of
infinite forces at one moment. Intersection alone may happen many times without producing
a lasting effect. The purposeful will of man must be ready for the coincidence, the time must
be ripe. Such conditions were only given, in the third and fourth centuries h., in Syria, in-
cluding northwestern Jazira; and it must have been there that the pointed stone arch resulted
from such an intersection of causes, the principal ones being the spread of the Iranian elliptic
arch to the West and the continuance of stone masonry in the country.

Figs. 88 and 89 — Damascus, ‘âdilïya

Fig. 90 — Damascus, ‘âdilîya, Elevation of Portal

\ m

>-\7û

5m_

—J

U7?

Fig. 91 — Damascus, Kilidjîya, Elevation of Portal

Fig. 92 — Damascus, Kilidjïya Fig. 93 — Damascus, ‘Adilïya

Figs. 94 and 95 — Damascus, Kilidjiya, Inscription

Figs. 96 and 97 — Ma'arra, Abu’l-Fawäris, Plan and Portal

Figs. 98 and 99 — Damascus, Sälihiya, al-Sähiba

Fig. i oo — -Damascus, Zâhirïya

Fig. ioi — Aleppo, Makämät, Kâmilïya N*>i

Figs, ioo and ioi — Cupolas Seen from Below

Fig. io2— Damascus, Tengizïya Fig. 103— Damascus, Sâlihïya, Müristän al-Kaimarï

Fig. 104 — Aleppo, Citadel, Façade of the Palace
of al-‘Azïz

Figs. 105-9 — Plans of Turbas in Damascus

Ke-j. i -je, J. 8 H -à Fig. Ill

Figs, iio and hi — Damascus, SälihIya, Müristän al-Kaimarï

No. X ÿtfi"

Fig. iio

Fig. i i 2

Fig. i 13

Figs. 112 and 113 — Damascus, Sälihiya, Müristän al-Kaimarî, Vault

r~m

z_ ^

V- o(

'7~

Figs. 114AND 115 — Damascus, Sha’mîva-Husâmîya

►H

O. -J—

Figs. 116-19 — Sha’mîya, Plan and Sections - \ ^7

Fig. 120 — Damascus, Turbat ‘Alâ al-Dïn Fig. 12 1 — Damascus, Turbat al-Nadjmîya

Fig. i 2 2— Damascus, Sâlihïya, Abü Djara_sh Fig. i 23-Damascus, Tupba al-Nadjmiya

Fig. 124

Fig. 125

Figs. 124 and 125 — Baalbek, Kubbat al-Amdjad

Fig. 126 — Damascus, Sälihiya, Raihän

t'fc' 3?Â“Î

3156

Fig. 127 — Baalbek, Kubbat al-Amdjad

H-Mo,

3<?3|

Fig. 128 — Damascus, Sälihiya, Raihän

Fig. 129 — Baalbek, Kubbat al-Amdjad

N&l, No, 3^32.

Figs. 126-30 — Five Small Vaults

Figs. 131 and 132 — Damascus, Tomb of Saladin

Figs. 133 and 134 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, Two Street Views

~fc- c\ ^

Figs. 136 and 137 — Damascus. Sâlihïya, al-Takrïtïya

Fig. 138 — Damascus, Sâijhïya, al-Takrïtïya Fig. 139 — Damascus, Sâlihïya, Tasht-där

fîî»«s!»îsr îîîSS“^

'T~ jsrarara

ÏPWM

IBlMi

&$*<♦§ §f-

l£MI

-t««;

*;*♦’*> .

“2.

£>

<
>
IK— <

i<£

C/>

ÉJh

<r r —

~^Z- n\

JT Z)

Figs. 140-45 — Damascus, Various Views

Figs. 146-49 — -Damascus, Sâlihïya, al-Hâfizïya

DAMASCUS: STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE— III

Again, only two hundred years later, it was in Syria that the architects among the cru-
saders saw that arch at a moment when they were in the same situation as that in which the
Syrians had been before them. They understood its advantage over the Romanesque arch
and its far-reaching possibilities and applied it to the problems with which they labored.
Thus, by the contact between East and West during the crusades, an oriental thought ex-
panded over the West in an intensity it never reached in the East itself.

NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES *
PAR HENRI STERN

I , ES NOTES QUI VONT SUIVRE SONT DESTINEES À RELEVER QUELQUES CARACTERES PARTICULIERS

d’un groupe de monuments omeyyades. Nous sommes en effet convaincus que ces monuments,
des châteaux princiers, ont plus d’originalité, qu’ils ont donné plus d’impulsions nouvelles à
l’architecture musulmane naissante qu’on n’a voulu admettre jusqu’ici, qu’ils marquent, pour
tout dire, le véritable début d’une architecture musulmane civile. C’est sur cet aspect de la
question que nous insisterons dans la mesure où des circonstances difficiles nous ont permis de
réunir les documents.

Nous nous excusons du caractère fragmentaire et tout préliminaire de cette étude. Les
fouilles en Syrie et en Palestine ne sont point encore terminées, ou ne l’étaient pas au début
de la guerre. Quelques rapports en ont donné sommairement les résultats. De nombreux sites
attendent l’exploration ou, du moins, un relevé et une étude. Peu de monuments sont publiés
avec le soin suffisant. Aussi peut-on dire que nous ne nous trouvons qu’aux débuts des recherches
sur l’art omeyyade.

L’idée même de considérer ces châteaux comme un groupe homogène d’oeuvres d’art
n’a pu naître que depuis peu de temps. Ce n’est, en effet que depuis les fouilles entre-
prises par les soins de l’Ecole de Damas à Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbî,1 par le Service des Antiqui-
tés de la Palestine à Khirbat al-Mafdjar 2 et enfin par une mission allemande à Khirbat al-
Minya 3 que cette idée a pu prendre corps. Elle nous est acquise aujourd’hui par des monu-
ments dont l’origine est assurée soit par des inscriptions soit par des analogies du plan, de la
construction et du style. Mshattâ et toute une série d’autres châteaux se classent ainsi avec
certitude parmi les oeuvres omeyyades.

LES CARACTÈRES DU GROUPE

C’est le plan de ces châteaux que nous voudrions considérer en premier lieu. Quant à la
construction et au décor, peu connus encore, nous n’en parlerons qu ’incidemment et en tant
qu’ils relèvent les caractères particuliers de l’architecture.

Trois monuments que nous avons nommés, Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbî (Fig. i ), Khirbat
al-Minya (Figs. 3-4) et Khirbat al-Mafdjar (Fig. 2) doivent former le point de départ de cette
étude. Les dates de construction en sont assurées par des inscriptions qui se rapportent, pour

* The manuscript for this article reached Ann Arbor
in the fall of 1942, but publication was unfortunately
delayed by the war. — ED.

1 D. Schlumberger, “Les Fouilles de Qasr el-Heir el-
Gharbi,” Syria, XX (1939), 195-238 et 324-73.

2 Dont D. V. Baramki a donné un rapport tout pré-
liminaire, “Excavations at Khirbet el Mefjer,” Quart.
Dept, of Antiquities in Palestine, V (1935-36), 132-

38, et VI (1936-38), 157-68. Résumé avec des indi-

cations supplémentaires dans, D. V. Baramki, “Where an
8th-Century Caliph Hoped to Spend Congenial Winters,”
lllus. London News, CXCIII (1938), No. 5185, 407-9.
Notre plan de Khirbat al-Mafdjar est celui que M. Baram-
ki a publié dans le Quarterly, X (1942), Fig. 1, face
à p. 153. Nous n’avons pas eu prendre connaissance
qu’après la mise sous presse de notre manuscrit.

3 A. M. Schneider et O. Püttrich-Reignard, “Ein
frühislamischer Bau am See Genezareth,” Palästinahefte
des Vereins vom Heiligen Lande, Hft. 15 (Köln, 1937).

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

les deux premiers, au Khalife Hishäm (724-743) 4 et pour le troisième à Walïd, Khalife
omeyyade également.5

Voici les caractères distinctifs du plan de ces trois monuments dont M. J. Sauvaget a
déjà relevé quelques traits essentiels6: enceinte rectangulaire d’environ 70 m. x 70 m., aux
angles, des tours-contreforts rondes, sur les côtés, des tours-contreforts semi-circulaires.7 À
l’intérieur, des pièces, appuyées contre le mur d’enceinte, se placent autour d’une cour égale-
ment rectangulaire, entourée d’un portique. Parmi ces pièces un groupe se détache par son
caractère particulier: une salle oblongue est accompagnée des deux côtés de deux ou de plusieurs
pièces de moitié plus petites. Ces cinq, neuf ou onze pièces forment un appartement ri-
goureusement clos qui ne communique qu’avec la cour. Ces appartements, que K. A. C. Cres-
well 8 appelle des “baits” (des maisons) se retrouvent dans les trois châteaux. À Kasr al-Hair,
ils se répètent six fois autour de la cour, couvrant toute la surface bâtie à l’intérieur, à Khirbat
al-Mafdjar un bait seulement (No. 1 du plan) est placé dans l’aile ouest, face à l’entrée. C’est
la salle de réception. À Khirbat al-Minya nous retrouvons deux baits dans la partie relevée
de l’aile ouest, également face à l’entrée, et un autre dans l’aile sud à côté d’une grande salle.
Les autres parties de ces deux châteaux, dans la mesure ou elles sont relevées, comprennent une
mosquée et des salles de dimensions considérables. À Khirbat al-Mafdjar, p.e., l’aile nord est
occupée tout entière par une grande salle à sept voûtes en berceau barlongues que M. Baramki
considère comme une salle de fête.

Deux variantes se dégagent dans ce premier groupe9: l’une celle de Kasr al-Hair,
comprend des baits tout autour de la cour, l’autre, celle des deux châteaux de Palestine, réduit
le rôle des baits: des salles spacieuses et une mosquée occupent une grande partie de la surface
bâtie à l’intérieur.

La technique se ressemble dans les trois cas, bien qu’elle ne soit pas tout à fait la même.
Ce sont des constructions mixtes où la pierre et la brique sont également employées. Murs
d’enceinte à Khirbat al-Minya et à Khirbat al-Mafdjar: parement en pierre de taille renfer-
mant un noyau de blocage; à Kasr al-Hair, le socle du mur d’enceinte exécuté selon cette
technique, le haut des murs en briques crues qui ont disparu. Les couvertures des pièces sont,

4 Pour Khirbat al-Mafdjar cf. Baramki, lllus. Lon-
don News, p. 407. Pour Kasr al-Hair une inscription du
mois de Radjah de l’an 109 (novembre 727) gravée sur le
linteau de la porte d’entrée (maintenant à Damas) du
Khan donne le nom du fondateur: le Khalif Hishäm. Le
Khan est certainement contemporain du château. Cf.
aussi Et. Combe, J. Sauvaget et G. Wiet, Répertoire
chronologique d’épigraphie arabe (Le Caire, 1931), I,
23, No. 27.

5 Schneider et Püttrich-Reignard, op. cit., p. 12; l’in-
scription n’est pas encore publiée et les auteurs ne disent
pas de quel Khalife Walïd il s’agit.

6 J. Sauvaget, “Les Ruines omeyyades du Djebel
Seïs,” Syria, XX (1939), 254.

7 Parfois la tour ronde ou semi-circulaire est rem-

placée par une tour carrée: tours flanquant l’entrée et
minaret de la mosquée à Khirbat al-Mafdjar. La tour
byzantine qui, à Kasr al-Hair, se trouve à la place d’une
tour d’angle peut être laissée de côté ici.

8 K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture (Ox-
ford, 1932), I.

9 II faut évidemment tenir compte du fait que ces
châteaux comportaient un deuxième étage. Nous n’en
connaissons pas toujours la disposition. A Kasr al-
Kharâna (cf. ci-dessous p. 74) où les deux étages sont con-
servés, le plan du premier ne se répète que sur trois ailes
au deuxième étage. La quatrième, celle de l’entrée com-
porte deux grandes salles, sans doute des écuries, au rez-
de-chaussée, mais deux baits et une salle de réception à
l’étage supérieur.

HENRI STERN

aux deux Khirbat, des voûtes en brique cuite, à Kasr al-Hair des poutres de bois posées à plat
et reposant sur des arcs transversaux en pierre.

Le plan de Kasr al-Hair représente le modèle-type dont les architectes de Kasr al-Tüba10 et
de Kasr al-Kharâna,11 tous les deux situés en Transjordanie, se sont inspirés. Ils le repro-
duisent avec quelques changements insignifiants.

Kasr al-Tüba est considérée aujourd’hui assez généralement, si nous ne nous trompons
pas, comme oeuvre omeyyade12: le schéma du plan de Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbî y est tout
simplement dédoublé {Fig. 5). Deux carrés de 70 m x 70 m sont juxtaposés. Les tours-contre-
forts sont rondes aux angles, semi-circulaires sur les côtés, sauf celles qui flanquent les entrées:
elles sont carrées comme à Khirbat al-Mafdjar. L’intérieur comprend quatre baits au lieu de
six, chacun de cinq pièces et pourvu, en outre, d’une cour particulière. Ces quatre logements
se groupent autour d’une cour centrale. Trois petites pièces de service, cuisine, office et latrine
probablement, ces dernières placées dans des pièces pourvues de petites niches, complètent le
dispositif comme à Kasr al-Hair et donnent une indépendence entière à chacun des apparte-
ments.

Technique mixte comme dans les autres cas: la partie inférieure du mur d’enceinte
blocage avec parements en pierre de taille, le haut des murs en brique cuite. Pièces couvertes
de voûtes en berceau, construites en briques cuites.

Kasr al-Kharâna qui répète encore ce plan-type, a été retranché, à tort, pensons-nous,
par M. Creswell de la liste des oeuvres omeyyades {Fig. 6). Les dimensions en sont, il est vrai,
de moitié plus petites que celles de Kasr al-Hair: 35 m x 35 m. Mais dans les deux cas, elles
se ramènent à une unité fixe qui semble être le pied romain: 35 m — 100 pieds romains,
70 m = 200 pieds romains. L’enceinte comporte, comme à Kasr al-Hair, quatre tours rondes
aux angles et quatre tours semi-circulaires sur les côtés. À l’intérieur au premier étage, cinq
baits se groupent autour d’une cour carrée qui est entourée d’un portique à colonnes. Mêmes
les petites pièces de service, bien qu’en nombre réduit, ne manquent pas dans ce pavillon.
Emplacement et agencement des escaliers sont les mêmes qu’à Kasr al-Hair et à Khirbat al-
Mafdjar: ils se situent dans les espaces laissés libres entre les quatre corps de bâtiment.

À côte de ces analogies étroites des plans, les différences dans la technique de construc-
tion qui ont amené M. Creswell à éliminer ce monument d’entre les oeuvres omeyyades ne
peuvent jouer. Voici comment les P. P. Jaussen et Savignac 13 la définissent: “Grosses pierres
mal équarriées, appareillées le plus souvent par leur petit côté. Lits d’assises .... régularisés
.... avec des pierres de dimension moindre posées à plat, et avec mortier, employé à pro-
fusion. Le tout couvert d’une épaisse couche de mortier.”

10 Relevés et étude détaillée, avec de nombreuses
photographies dans l’ouvrage des Pères Jaussen et Sa-
vignac, Les Châteaux arabes de Qeseir ‘Attira Harâneh
et Tûba (Paris, 1922), Pis. IV-XVIII.

11 Relevés, photographies et étude, ibid., Pis., XIX-
XXXV, pp. 51-77.

12 Kasr al-Tüba, introduit dans l’archéologie par A.
Musil lors de sa publication de Kusejr ‘Attira (Wien,
1907) a toujours été mis en rapport avec le château de
Mshattâ. La date d’origine qu’on lui attribuait variait
selon l’opinion des auteurs sur Mshattâ; cf. à ce sujet
la bibliographie dans Creswell, op. cit.

13 Jaussen et Savignac, op. cit., p. 52.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

Mshattä,14 tout en sortant de la série, est issu, c’est l’évidence même, du plan-type que
nous avons défini ( Fig. 7). C’est le château d’habitation amplifié pour les besoins de la
représentation: une enceinte carrée, pourvue de tours-contreforts arrondies, une cour carrée à
l’intérieur, entourée de constructions qui s’adossent au mur d’enceinte. Les dimensions en
sont, il est vrai, le double de la norme: 140 m x 140 ni; 140m x 140 m; mais elles sont établies
sur l’unité que nous connaissons: 35 m = 100 pieds environ.

Les détails caractéristiques des châteaux omeyyades se retrouvent, les baits15: les latrines
aménagées dans les tours, comme à al-Tüba, à côté d’elles, projectées sans doute, mais non
exécutées, les pièces de service. Le hall d’entrée, avec ses trois paires de pilastres, ayant sup-
porté des arcs transversaux, est tout à fait le même qu’à Kasr al-Hair, à Khirbat al-Mafdjar
et à Khirbat al-Minya, à la seule différence près que dans ces édifices de moindre dimension
une ou deux paires de pilastres suffisent pour soutenir des arcs transversaux, supports des voûtes.
Enfin, la mosquée à l’intérieur complète ces analogies avec les autres châteaux omeyyades
(Khirbat al-Mafdjar, Khirbat al-Minya).

Technique mixte comme à al-Tüba, à al-Hair al-Gharbï et ailleurs: le mur d’enceinte,
blocage avec parement en pierre de taille (jusqu’à quelle hauteur?), les murs à l’intérieur,
à part les portes et les socles, ainsi que toutes les voûtes, en brique cuite. Mshattä, s’il eût
été achevé nous aurait montré le génie des architectes omeyyades à son apogée. Ce qui en est
conservé, n’est qu’un faible reste de ce qu’on a voulu faire.

D’autres édifices, Kasr al-Hair al-Sharkî et Kasr al-Abyâd dans la Ruhba se classent pour
les mêmes raisons de style parmi les oeuvres omeyyades. Kasr al-Hair al-Sharkï près de
Palmyre, découvert et décrit par M. A. Gabriel,16 est considéré aujourd’hui, sans conteste, pen-
sons-nous, comme oeuvre omeyyade (Fig. 8). Les dimensions de l’enceinte, compte tenu des
irrégularités considérables de l’implantation, les tours arrondies, la technique de construction,
socles en pierre, le haut des murs en brique, le décor, concentré sur la porte d’entrée comme
à Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbï et à Mshattä, en font une oeuvre de notre école. Les pièces à l’inté-
rieur, s’appuyant à l’enceinte, ne seraient pas contemporaines. D’ailleurs, les plans de M.
Gabriel,17 de A. Musil 18 et de Creswell diffèrent sur ce point.

La date de l’édifice est, pour nous, donnée par une inscription trouvée autrefois dans

14 Nous ne revenons pas ici sur la discussion qui s’est
engagée depuis quarante ans autour de ce monument.
La découverte et l’étude des châteaux que nous avons
nommés nous paraissent avoir clos définitivement le
débat. Dans l’ouvrage de Creswell, op. cit., on trouvera
une énumération scrupuleuse des publications sur ce
sujet et des thèses qu’elles présentent. Plans, relevés,
reconstitutions et photographies de Mshattä dans R. E.
Brünnow et A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia
(Strasbourg, 1905), II, 105-76 et dans J. Strzygowski
et B. Schulz, “Mschatta,” Jahrb. d. Kgl. Preuss.
Kunstsamml. (—J P K.), XXV (1904), 205-373.

15 Nous rejetons avec M. Creswell la reconstitution
de B. Schulz {op. cit., reconstitution de la salle à coupole,

coupe nord-sud) qui voit dans la pièce centrale des baits,
non pas une cour, mais une salle couverte d’une voûte en
berceau.

16 A. Gabriel, “Qasr el-Heir,” Syria, VIII (1927),
302-29, avec plans, relevés et photographies; H. Seyrig,
“Retour aux jardins de Qasr-el-Heir,” Syria, XV (1934),
24-32 complète et corrige l’étude de M. Gabriel pour ce
qui est des installations d’irrigation et des jardins. Cres-
well, op. cit., présente des observations intéressantes sur
la grande enceinte et sur la mosquée.

17 Gabriel, op. cit., PI. XXXIX.

18 A. Musil, Palmyrena, Amer. Geogr. Soc. Oriental
Explorations and Studies, No. 4 (1928), 73, Fig. 16.

HENRI STERN

la grande enceinte.19 La grande et la petite enceinte étant selon toute evidence les oeuvres d’un
seul architecte et d’une seule époque, cette inscription fixe l’origine des deux ouvrages: elle
nomme comme fondateur de la grande enceinte le Khalife omeyyade Hishâm et comme année
de fondation l’an 728-29.

Nos connaissances sur le château al-Abyâd dans la Ruhba sont bien réduites. Seuls deux
plans, très sommaires, levés par Wetzstein 20 et par le Marquis de Vogüé,21 une photographie
aérienne publiée par le R. P. Poidebard,22 quelques dessins et photographies du décor 23 et
les descriptions des voyageurs 24 permettent de nous en faire une idée. Quant aux plans, celui
de M. de Vogüé, plus détaillé que celui de Wetzstein, et le croquis du R. P. Poidebard
d’après la photographie aérienne, ils se correspondent: enceinte rectangulaire dont Vogüé
donne les dimensions, 60 m x 60 m (mais qui ne sont, certes, qu’approximatives), avec des
tours arrondies, celles des angles creuses, les tours intermédiaires massives. Poidebard en note
cinq, Vogüé six. Point de tours à l’entrée. Quant aux constructions à l’intérieur, Vogüé donne
une série de pièces isolées, juxtaposées le long des murs d’enceinte, Poidebard semble indiquer
deux groupes de pièces qui rappellent nos baits. Les descriptions des voyageurs ne permettent
pas de compléter les données du plan. Riche décor autour de la porte d’entrée. Technique de
construction de l’enceinte: parement en pierre de taille avec blocage; les pierres de taille ont la
coupe caractéristique en queue d’aronde.

En attendant une exploration de ce site important nous le classerons avec M. E. Herz-
feld 25 et M. J. Sauvaget 26 parmi les oeuvres omeyyades. Plan, technique de construction et
style du décor nous y autorisent.

Enfin, tout récemment, M. J. Sauvaget27 a relevé un site que déjà M. E. Herzfeld et Miss
Bell ont attribué aux Omeyyades: le Djabal Sais (Fig. ç). L’étude succincte, mais précise
de M. Sauvaget en fait ressortir les caractères nettement omeyyades. L’édifice principal est un
château du type des nôtres: carré de 66 m 70 x 66 m 70 hors oeuvre, huit tours arrondies, dont
l’une, sur le côté nord, coupée en deux parties pour encadrer la salle d’entrée (comme à al-
Minya et à al-Kharâna). À l’intérieur, adossées au mur d’enceinte, des constructions que M.
Sauvaget signale sans en avoir pu lever le plan à cause du mauvais état de conservation.28 Tech-
nique mixte: socle en blocage entre parements en pierre de taille, le haut des murs en briques
crues qui ont disparues. La porte d’entrée seule était entièrement construite en pierre (cf.
Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbi). La salle attenante à la pièce semi-circulaire au premier étage de la

19 Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, I, 23,
No. 28.

20 J. G. Wetzstein, Reisebericht über Hauran und die
Trac honen (Berlin, i860), pp. 63-64.

21 C. J. M. de Vogüé, Syrie centrale: Architecture
civile et religieuse du 1er au Vile siècle (Paris, 1865-
77), I, 69 ff., PL 24.

22 A. Poidebard, La Trace de Rome dans le désert
de Syrie, Haut-Comm. de la Répub. Franç. en Syrie et
au Liban, Service des antiq. et des beaux-arts, Bibl.
archéol. et hist., XVIII (1934), PL LUI Atias, pp. 55,

63, 67.

23 Dans Vogüé, op. cit., PL 24; Brünnow et Domas-
zewski, op. cit., II, Figs. 858 et 859; E. Herzfeld,
“Mshattâ, Hîra und Bâdiya,” JPK., XLII (1921), Pis.
2b, 6b.

24 Qu’on trouve commodément réunies dans Brünnow
et Domaszewski, op. cit., pp. 263-66.

25 Op. cit., p. 130.

26 Op. cit., p. 254.

27 Sauvaget, op. cit., pp. 238-56.

28 Ibid.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

tour d’entrée était couverte d’une voûte en berceau en briques cuites. Une mosquée, un bain,
de très nombreuses maisons d’habitation dont l’une, le bâtiment D, pourvue de tours contre-
forts aux angles, et des greniers, des magasins, des écuries, datent tous de la même époque.

Cette réunion de plusieurs édifices autour d’un château serait un trait commun et
essentiel aux sites omeyyades. M. J. Sauvaget a insisté sur ce point lors d’un cours fait en
1 93 8-3 9 à l’École Pratique des Hautes Études (Sorbonne). En effet, les deux Kasr al-Hair,
Khirbat al-Mafdjar, Djabal Sais, Kasr al-Tüba, Kasr al-Abyâd ne sont pas des édifices isolés:
ils se trouvent au milieu d’importants champs de ruines qui se sont révélés à l’exploration
(aux deux Kasr al-Hair et Djabal Sais) comme des exploitations agricoles pourvues d’impor-
tantes installations à capter l’eau et à irriguer le terrain. Les bâtiments autour du château
sont les maisons d’habitation du personnel, des magasins et des greniers. Le site du Djabal
Sais en a livré des échantillons très variés. La présence de pareilles installations dans les
autres sites est, selon M. J. Sauvaget, assez probable. Les explorateurs les auraient négligées.
Quoiqu’il en soit, le fait aura son importance pour la suite de notre exposé.

Résumons nous: neuf monuments aux particularités nettement tranchées forment un
groupe d’édifices homogène; elles sont l’oeuvre de l’époque omeyyade et certaines d’entre elles,
selon les inscriptions, sont commandées par les Khalifes mêmes.

AL-KASTAL

A ce groupe de châteaux omeyyades, nous ajouterons un monument qui prend une im-
portance particulière dans l’étude de la génèse du style: le camp al-Kastal, situé à 5 km. ouest-
nord-ouest de Mshattâ. Ce monument a été invoqué par J. Strzygowski ainsi que par E. Herz-
feld, par Miss Bell 29 et par K. A. C. Creswell pour prouver que l’architecture des châteaux
omeyyades provient des constructions syriennes. Tantôt considéré comme camp romain 50
tantôt comme forteresse des Phylarques ghassânides d’époque justinienne, al-Kastal semblait
prouver que le plan de nos châteaux n’était point apporté par les Omeyyades, qu’il était déjà
formé en Syrie au plus tard au Vie siècle, que les Arabes musulmans ne faisaient que copier ce
qu’ils avaient trouvé dans l’architecture de la région.

Or il nous semble31 qu’al-Kastal ne peut être qu’une création omeyyade.

Le site al-Kastal est un important champ de ruines exploré pour la première fois métho-
diquement par Brünnow et Domaszewski {Fig. 10). Les savants allemands ont relevé et publié
le plan d’un “camp romain”32 et celui d’un “prétoire”33 situé à quelques pas au nord du
“camp.” Mais le champ des ruines comporte d’autres restes encore. Tristram34 parle d’un
barrage de 600 yards de long et de 18 yards de large, en partie ruiné, situé à quelques minutes
du camp, traversant du nord au sud un ouadi qui prend son cours d’ouest en est. Au nord-
ouest du camp se trouvent les restes d’une ancienne ville. Grey Hill35 enfin signale une grande

29 G. L. Bell, Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir (Ox-
ford, 1914), p. 105.

30 Brünnow et Domaszewski, op. cit., pp. 95-102.

31 Nous sommes heureux de nous trouver d’accord
sur ce point avec M. J. Sauvaget.

32 Brünnow et Domaszewski, op. cit., PI. XLIV.

33 Ibid.

34 H. B. Tristram, The Land of Moab (London,
1874), p. 218.

35 G. Hill, “A Journey East of the Jordan and the
Dead Sea, 1895,” Quart. Statement of the Palestine Ex-
ploration Fund, 1896, pp. 45 ff.

HENRI STERN

citerne et suppose qu’il y en a bien d’autres. Il s’agit donc d’un ensemble de ruines assez
important qui, à première vue déjà, montre des ressemblances avec les deux Kasr al-Hair et le
Djabal Sais. Un bâtiment principal, “le camp,” se situe à proximité d’une exploitation agri-
cole qui comporte d’autres bâtiments et une installation pour l’irrigation.

Mais voyons le plan du bâtiment principal, du “camp,” levé par Domaszewski. La parenté
étroite avec le plan-type des châteaux omeyyades saute aux yeux. C’est la variante de Kasr
al-Hair al-Gharbï qui se trouve répétée ici: rectangle de 70 m x 70 m (d’après Domaszewski
70,5 m x 68,75 m) pourvu de tours arrondies aux angles, semi-circulaires sur les côtés.

À l’intérieur six appartements rigoureusement clos, les uns contre les autres, s’adossent au
mur d’enceinte et renferment une cour carrée. Chacun de ces appartements comporte une
pièce principale oblongue, accompagnée des deux côtés de deux pièces de moitié plus petites.
Ces pièces étaient couvertes de voûtes en berceau, exécutées en pierre de taille.36 C’est donc
le plan et la construction des baits omeyyades. Il est vrai que deux de ces appartements seule-
ment, C4 et C5, présentent ce plan idéal. Comme à Kasr al-Hair les autres ne le montrent que
déformé.

La disposition des baits autour de la cour est la même qu’à Kasr al-Hair: l’aile de la porte
d’entrée, divisée tout naturellement par le hall d’entrée en deux parties, comporte deux
appartements ainsi que l’aile d’en face. Les deux ailes latérales n’en contiennent qu’un seul
chacune.37 Les proportions des appartements sont quelque peu différentes dans les deux châ-
teaux. La zone bâtie est plus profonde à al Kastal qu’à Kasr al-Hair. Il en résulte que les
“baits” d’al-Kastal sont moins étirés que ceux de Kasr al-Hair. Les dimensions se rapprochent
de celles des baits de Mshattâ. Ces proportions variables, loin de contredire une attribution
d’al-Kastal aux Omeyyades font ressortir un trait commun à leurs châteaux. Tout en se serv-
ant du même plan-type les architectes en changent les dispositions à l’intérieur avec souplesse
selon les exigences des maîtres et du terrain.

Quant aux escaliers, leur emplacement à al-Kastal, je ne comprend pas par le plan de Doma-
szewski. L’hypothèse de cet auteur qui les place dans les petites pièces situées devant les tours
d’angle est à rejeter. L’unique argument en faveur decette thèse est la présence d’un renfoncement
dans le mur d’enceinte de l’angle sud-est, renfoncement qui a la même largeur que les portes
des escaliers dans les camps romains d’al-Ladjdjün et d’Odhroh.38 Us y mènent aux étages
supérieurs des tours. Mais ici, l’épaisseur bien moindre du mur d’enceinte (1 m 50) ne permet
pas de placer un escalier à l’intérieur. Aussi Domaszewski a-t-il essayé de se tirer de la diffi-
culté en reconstituant cet escalier à l’extérieur du mur, le long des parois de la pièce p 1.

36 Ce mode de construction, inhabituel dans la région
pour les pièces d’habitation, ne s’explique, pour nous,
que par l’intention des architectes d’imiter les voûtes en
brique des autres châteaux omeyyades.

37 A Kasr al-Hair la nature des lieux a imposé à
l’architecte une irrégularité que ne se retrouve pas à
al-Kastal. Au lieu de séparer les deux appartements en

face de l’entrée par un mur seulement, il a été obligé,
pour laisser la place de la citerne, d’intercaler un couloir
ouvert sur la cour. L’appartement de droite s’en trouve
amputé de deux petites pièces.

38 Brünnow et Domaszewski, op. cit., I, 433 ff. ; II,
24 ff.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

Aucune trace ne s’est conservée de cet escalier qui, par sa disposition même, s’écarterait de
tout ce que nous savons de l’architecture de la région.

Quant à l’entrée, elle est du type decellesdeKasral-Hair,deMshattâ ou de Kharâna. Une
sorte de salle oblongue est partagée par trois paires de pilastres en deux compartiments de
dimensions égales. Domaszewski suppose comme couverture de ces compartiments des voûtes
d’arête. Nous préférerions y reconstituer des voûtes en berceau barlongues par analogie avec
les voûtes de la pièce r 1, p.e.39

Enfin un élément de l’architecture de ce château mérite notre attention particulière et
nous sommes obligés de nous y appesantir: les tours.

Les châteaux omeyyades ont des tours-contreforts arrondies, massives, et au dernier
étage, des petites pièces pourvues de meurtrières ou une plateforme. Ces pièces sont
restées intactes dans la petite et dans la grande enceinte de Kasr al-Hair al-Sharkï 40 et au
château abbasside d’Ukhaidir, mieux conservé qu’aucun château omeyyade. (Ile moitié du
Ville siècle).41 Il est vrai que certaines de ces tours comportent au rez-de-chaussée des
réduits (Mshattâ, al-Tüba, Djabal Sais) mais il n’y a pas d’étage au-dessus d’elles. L’emplace-
ment même de ces tours par rapport aux appartements diminue singulièrement leur rôle défensif.
Elles butent contre une cloison ou ne sont accessibles que d’une seule pièce.42

Les tours des camps romains ou byzantins, par contre, sont de véritable tours de défense
avec des pièces à tous les étages, destinées à abriter les troupes au cas même où l’ennemi péné-
trerait dans le camp. L’ancien type de ces tours,43 celui du Ile siècle, comporte trois étages et un
escalier à l’intérieur. Al-Ladjdjûn et Odhroh présentent ce type classique. Domaszewski in-
siste sur l’importance des tours dans l’ensemble de la construction.44 Le camp dioclétien,
signalé par le R. P. Poidebard 45 et le fort byzantin gardent cette tour de défense, avec
quelques différences: la communication entre les pièces se fait en général par des escaliers
extérieurs par des échelles et par le chemin de ronde. Le plan est plus varié ; la tour de l’époque de
Trajan est ronde aux angles, rectangulaire et terminée par une abside sur les côtés de l’enceinte,
celle d’époque justinienne est tantôt carrée, tantôt ronde, tantôt polygonale. Seules les tours
semi-circulaires sont absolument inconnues dans les fortifications romaines et byzantines. Ces
tours sont accessibles de tous les points du camp. À l’époque de Trajan, aucune construction
adossée à l’enceinte n’en gênait l’entrée. Dans les forteresses byzantines les pièces placées
devant les portes des tours communiquent avec les autres et permettent l’accès de la tour de
toutes parts.

39 Ibid., Figs. 679 et 680.

40 Creswell, op. cit., p. 335.

41 O. Reuther, “Ocheïdir,” Wissensch. Veröffent-
lichungen d. deutschen Orient-Gesellsch., XX (1912), PI.

VI.

42 Ce qui ne veut point dire que ces tours ne servaient
pas à l’occasion à la défense. Le rôle défensif en pouvait
être le même que celui des tours contreforts des fortifi-
cations sassanides qui comportent une seule petite pièce

ou une plate-forme au dernier étage accessible par le
chemin de ronde, d’où les parties avoisinantes des murs
sont surveillées (cf. ci-dessous p. 85 sq).

43 Domaszewski, op. cit., définit avec précision le
caractère des tours d’al-Ladjdjün et d’Odhroh.

44 Op. cit., I, 433: “Das Verständnis des Aufbaues
beruht auf der Konstruktion der Ecktürme.”

45 Poidebard, op. cit., Pis. XV, XVI, XIX, XXVII,
XXIII-XXV, XXVIII et ailleurs.

HENRI STERN

De toute évidence, les tours d’al-Kastal sont du type omeyyade, non point du type
romain. Plan: les trois quarts d’un cercle aux angles, outrepassant légèrement le demi-cercle
sur les côtés, comme à Mshattâ. Dimensions également comme à Mshattâ. Quant à l’intérieur
de ces tours, Domaszewski ne l’a effectivement relevé que pour deux d’entre elles, celle de
l’angle sud-ouest (No. V) et la tour intermédiaire avoisinante (No. IV), le plan des autres
est dessiné par analogie avec celles-ci. Selon ce plan, elles comportent toutes des pièces à l’inté-
rieur. Mais Domaszewski 46 dit “la tour V ne possédait certainement pas d’entrée au rez-de-
chaussée. De même, nulle part ailleurs n’existe une entrée au rez-de-chaussée des tours. Il
s’ensuit que l’espace intérieur du rez-de-chaussée n’a pu être accessible que du premier étage.”
Solution peu satisfaisante nous semble-t-il. Nous pensons que la difficulté se résoudra plus
aisément si l’on considère ces tours comme des contreforts dont les espaces intérieurs, à part
certains cas particuliers (latrines?) n’étaient pas destinés à l’usage. En effet, une partie d’entre
elles seulement sont accessibles à travers un appartement, les autres butent contre des cloisons.

Mais est-il même certain que ces tours soient creuses? Domaszewski ne se serait-il pas
laissé séduire par l’idée de relever un camp romain et de voir ces tours par analogie avec les
tours de ceux-ci? Ce qu’il considère comme le mur pourrait bien être, pour quelques tours du
moins, un parement de pierre de taille renfermant un blocage caché sous les débris, tombés
du haut des murs. Mais quoiqu’il en soit, le caractère de contre-fort reste acquis aux tours d’al-
Kastal. La nature particulière des matériaux employés (dont nous aurons à parler) en ex-
pliquerait la divergence avec ceux des autres châteaux omeyyades.

C’est à ce point de notre étude que M. J. Sauvaget a donné encore un argument, définitif,
nous semble-t-il, en faveur de l’origine omeyyade de ce château.

L’édifice qui se trouve à quelques pas à l’ouest de l’angle nord-ouest du château est con-
sidéré par Domaszewski comme le prétoire, par Tristram comme un petit château. Les
dimensions en sont hors oeuvre 180125x230115, calculées sur le relevé de Domaszewski. À
l’angle nord-ouest se trouve une tour ronde avec un escalier tournant à l’intérieur.47 Elle se
termine par une loggia ouverte, formée de colonnes du type corinthien de la basse époque. Il
est évident que cet édifice ne peut être le prétoire. L’emplacement en dehors du camp, la
présence de la tour le distinguent des prétoires que nous connaissons dans la région. Or, Tris-
tram signale une niche semi-circulaire, creusée dans le mur sud, niche que Domaszewski a
omise dans son relevé. Elle donne la solution du problème: cet édifice est une mosquée, la
niche en est le mihrab, la tour le minaret et les deux chapiteaux de marbre que Tristram a vus
gisant dans la cour sont les restes de colonnes qui supportaient, soit l’arc du mihrab, soit des
arcades transversales.

Cette mosquée se place dans la série assez considérable des mosquées omeyyades faisant
partie de l’habitation princière. Elles sont construites sur un plan rectangulaire, à nefs trans-
versales, sans cour; M. Sauvaget en a relevé une au Djabal Sais.48 Une autre se trouve

46 Op. cit., II, 96.

47 Brünnow et Domaszewski, op. cit., Figs. 681-83.

48 Op. cit., Fig. 6, p. 245.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

près de Kusair al-Halläbät.49 Les châteaux de Khirbat al-Minya, de Khirbat al-Mafdjar et
de Mshattâ renferment des mosquées de ce type. Nous signalons ceux de Khan al-Zabïb 50 et
de Umm al-Walïd 51 que nous attribuons avec M. Sauvaget 52 aux Omeyyades. Elles se situent
comme à al-Kastal en dehors du château. En nommant celle d’al-Ramla, nous croyons avoir
mentionné toutes celles qui, pour le moment, présentent ce type en Syrie et en Palestine. La seule
différence d’avec celle d’al-Kastal est le fait qu’elles n’ont pas de minaret ou que ces minarets
sont des tours carrées.53 Le nôtre est le premier exemple d’un minaret rond d’époque omey-
yade. La date n’en saurait pourtant pas être contestée: mosquée et minaret sont de la même
époque que le château. La construction, en matériaux remployés, des restes de décor qui se
trouvent dispersés dans les débris sont, paraît-il, d’une parfaite identité avec ce qu’on trouve
dans le château voisin.

Ajoutons une dernière observation de M. Sauvaget qui rend plus étroite encore la parenté
d’al-Kastal avec les châteaux omeyyades. Les débris de colonnes que Brünnow et Domaszew-
ski ont trouvés dans la cour du château (Tristram en a vu deux encore debout) seraient les
dernières traces d’un portique entourant la cour.

Ainsi, al-Kastal présente les caractères les plus marquants des châteaux omeyyades: une
enceinte rectangulaire à tours-contreforts arrondies, avec des baits à l’intérieur et une mosquée
se trouvent être le centre d’une exploitation agricole, irriguée à l’aide d’un grand barrage. Ce
que Tristram appelle la ville étaient sans doute les habitations du personnel, de la suite du
prince et des ouvriers agricoles.

Après cette analyse il nous semble inutile d’insister sur les nombreuses erreurs de M.
Domaszewski qui voit dans ce château le camp d’une cohorte à six centuries. Qu’une
seule de ces invraisemblances soit mise en relief: les grandes pièces seraient des cours
de rassemblement, chacune de cent hommes qui couchaient dans les pièces avoisinantes. La
surface de ces “cours,” ioo m2, est à peine suffisante pour contenir cent hommes, les portes,
larges de i m 25 seulement, ne laissent passer que deux hommes à la fois. Jamais lieu de
rassemblement militaire n’eût été conçu de façon plus maladroite.

Une seule objection serait à faire contre cette attribution d’al-Kastal aux Omeyyades:
technique et matériaux de construction, l’emploi exclusif de la pierre de taille, posée sans
joint et dont les dimensions dépassent souvent tout ce que nous savons de l’architecture du
Vie et du Vile siècle.

Le fait s’explique cependant sans difficulté. Nous savons que les premiers architectes
musulmans se servaient couramment de matériaux de remploi. Les colonnes provenant d’édifices
antiques ou chrétiens ont été appelées l’un des caractères du premier art musulman. Au Dôme

49 H. C. Butler, “Ancient Architecture in Syria, Sec-
tion A. Southern Syria,” Publ. Princeton Univ. Archaeol.
Expedition to Syria, Division II (1907), 74-86 et Appen-
dix, pp. XVI-XVIII.

50 Brünnow et Domaszewski, op. cit., Figs. 665, 666,
p. 82.

51 Ibid., Fig. 671, p. 89.

52 Op. cit., p. 254.

53 A la mosquée de Khirbat al-Mafdjar et aussi à
celles de Bosrâ et de Damas (Cf. pour Bosrâ, J. Sau-
vaget, “Les Inscriptions arabes de la mosquée de Bosrâ,”
Syria, XXII [1941], 46). Entre les deux enceintes de
Kasr al-Hair se trouve aussi un minaret carré d’époque
omeyyade.

HENRI STERN

du Rocher, à la mosquée al-Aksâ on ne s’est pas toujours donné la peine de marteler les croix
sur les chapiteaux, souvenirs de l’origine chrétienne.

Il en a sans doute été de même à al-Kastal; les inscriptions nabatéennes signalées par
Tristram sur des pierres dans l’enceinte du château sont, pour nous, l’indice certain qu’il s’agit
de matériaux de remploi. Nous nous trouvons sur un site qui était habité au moins depuis
l’époque nabatéenne. Les Omeyyades firent ici ce qu’ils ont fait souvent ailleurs: ils se ser-
virent des restes trouvés sur les lieux pour construire leurs propres habitations. L’indifférence
envers les matériaux paraît être l’un des traits marquants de cette école.

Dans l’architecture on se sert de tous les matériaux, partant de toutes les techniques,
dans le décor aucun motif n’est réservé à une matière déterminée. Les mêmes formes
apparaissent également dans les stucs, dans les mosaïques et dans les ornements sculptés. Sur
la façade de Kasr al-Hair p.e., on applique pêle-mêle des motifs provenant du décor des
parois sassanides, des pavements du pays et des ornements architecturaux anciens.54 La façade
de Mshattâ traduit dans le style monumental de la pierre des formes qu’on n’avait vues
jusque là que dans les mosaïques ou dans des oeuvres d’art mineur. À al-Kastal, la voûte en
briques a été traduite en pierre de taille.

Voici donc résolue, nous semble-t-il, l’énigme qui a entouré jusqu’ici l’histoire d’al-Kastal.
Aussi, se justifie le récit de Tabarï selon lequel “Walïd, fils de Yazid, se fixa à al-Kastal et
son oncle ‘Abbâs après lui.” Ce prince malheureux dont le règne ne dura qu’un an (743-44)
a-t-il fait construire le château al-Kastal? Nous ne saurions le dire, mais une observation
tirée du plan de l’oeuvre nous en fait douter. La façon maladroite dont les deux tours de l’entrée
et avec elles l’entrée même sont placées, à côté du point médian de la muraille, accuse un tâtonne-
ment de débutant. Serait-ce un indice pour placer ce château au début de notre série et non pas
à la fin, ce qu’il faudrait faire s’il était une création de Walïd II? Nous laissons la question sans
réponse, nos connaissances ne nous permettant pas encore d’établir une chronologie rigoureuse
des oeuvres omeyyades. Pour le moment, contentons nous de ranger al-Kastal dans cette série.

LES ORIGINES

Ce plan-type des châteaux omeyyades est-il une création de toute pièce des architectes
omeyyades?

La question a fait couler beaucoup d’encre lorsque, il y a quarante ans, J. Strzygowski a pub-
lié son ouvrage sur Mshattâ. D’après lui, le plan de Mshattâ dérive du camp romain oriental à
cour intérieure. Ce camp d’Orient proviendrait d’un type architectural mésopotamien, de l’habi-
tation à cour intérieure (“Hofhaus”). M. Herzfeld qui s’est prononcé sur cette question à
plusieurs reprises55 est, jusqu’à un certain point, du même avis que M. Strzygowski: le plan de

54 Schlumberger, op. cit., pp. 336-47. and 105-44; idem, “Mshattâ, Hîra und Bâdiya,” et idem,

55 E. Herzfeld, “Die Genesis der islamischen Kunst Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von

und das Mshatta-Problem,” Der Islam, I (1910), 27-63 Samarra (Berlin, 1912), p. 39 sq.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

Mshattä proviendrait de celui du camp romain tel qu’il a été développé à Hïra (Mésopotamie),
dans la résidence des princes lakhmides.

Nous ne tenterons point d’intervenir dans cette discussion qui dépasse singulièrement le
cadre de notre étude. Nous nous proposons simplement de chercher les modèles immédiats du
plan des châteaux omeyyades. D’ailleurs le plan de Mshattä ne sera pris en considération qu’en
tant qu’apparenté au plan courant. Nous ne nous arrêterons pas à ses multiples particularités,
sauf à la salle du trône.

Le classement d’al-Kastal parmi ces mouvements facilitera notre tâche. Le plan de nos châ-
teaux appartient à l’école des Omeyyades c’est l’évidence même. C’est eux qui l’ont introduit
en Syrie et en Palestine. L’ont-ils créé ou emprunté ailleurs? M. E. Herzfeld et M. Strzygowski
sont tous deux de ce dernier avis, sans, cependant, en donner des preuves concluantes. M.
Herzfeld ne s’appuie que sur un texte. M. Strzygowski pousse les hypothèses très loin, mais
sans donner aucun argument sérieux.

Voyons cependant le texte dont M. Herzfeld fait état.56 Ce texte parle d’un château-fort du
Ve siècle qui serait le modèle-type des châteaux de Sämarrä. Il y est dit que le Khalife abbasside
al-Mutawakkil avait fait construire son palais à Sämarrä, la Balkuwärä actuelle, d’après le mo-
dèle du château d’un roi lakhmide de Hïra, de la famille des Nu'mânides (des Banü Nasr). Ce
palais aurait été construit “dans la forme de la guerre” (d’un “camp de guerre” selon E.
Herzfeld). Le roi aurait choisi cette forme “à cause de sa passion pour la guerre.” Suit une
description de la disposition de l’intérieur: une salle de réception est accompagnée de deux
pièces, d’une salle d’attente et d’une autre destinée à la préparation des mets qu’on offrait aux
hôtes. La salle principale est comparée à la poitrine, les deux salles latérales à deux manches.
Ces trois pièces se seraient situées autour d’une cour. “Et ce plan devint célèbre et fut imité
par tout le monde.”

Si ce récit est exact, il y a tout lieu de croire à l’existence de notre plan-type, sous la
forme particulière de Mshattä, en Mésopotamie au Ve siècle. La description est un peu vague,
il est vrai. Mais un château avec une enceinte fortifiée (d’où, d’après M. Herzfeld, le terme
“camp de guerre”) et, à l’intérieur, une salle de réception avec des pièces latérales se compare
aisément à Mshattä, à Kasr-al-‘Âshik et même à Balkuwärä Mshattä, au lieu d’être le point
de départ de la série des châteaux arabes n’en serait donc qu’un chaînon; ils proviendraient
tous du château de Hïra.

Du reste bien des textes nous disent qu’à l’époque et avant même l’époque de Moham-
med, peu de temps après la chute de la dynastie lakhmide, de nombreuses tribus arabes habi-
taient dans des châteaux-forts situés autour de la Mecque et de Médine. L’architecture de ces
châteaux-forts n’aurait-elle pas été inspirée par les constructions des lakhmides, ces princes
liés aux tribus d’Arabie par le sang et par la tradition? Les Banü Umayya de leur côté,

56 Mas'üdï, Les Prairies d’or, éd. C. Barbier de Mey- F. Sarre et E. Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise im Euphrat-

nard et A. J. B. Pavet de Courbeille (Paris, 1861-77), und Tigris-Gebiet, Forschungen zur Islamischen Kunst

VII, 192; Herzfeld, op. cit., et sur Sämarrä en général, (Berlin, 1911-20), I, 52-109.

HENRI STERN

n’auraient-ils pas apporté d’Arabie en Syrie le plan-type de ces châteaux qu’ils auraient
adapté alors aux conditions de leur vie nouvelle?

Mais tout ceci est du domaine de l’hypothèse. Aucun monument n’est venu confirmer les
dires de notre texte. Les fouilles entreprises à Hîra et résumées dans cette revue même 57
n’ont donné aucun résultat quant à ces constructions lakhmides. Nulle part ailleurs non plus
un édifice de ce type, antérieur au groupe omeyyade, n’a été trouvé. Ukhaidir est générale-
ment placé à la deuxième moitié du Ville siècle, à la suite immédiate de notre groupe, les
châteaux de Sâmarrâ viennent à une distance de cent ans environ.

Voyons donc ce que les monuments eux-mêmes nous disent:

Les Murs d’ Enceinte. — La Syrie et la Palestine aussi bien que la région mésopotamienne
et l’Iran connaissent le plan-type du camp rectangulaire fortifié, à cour intérieure, entourée
de pièces qui s’appuient aux murs d’enceinte.

Le schéma semble apparaître dans la région soumise à la domination romaine et byzan-
tine depuis le Ille siècle, si nous nous rapportons aux indications du R. P. Poidebard. Khan
al-Basïrï, p.e.,58 Khan al-Shamât,59 Kasr Bshair,60 toutes attribuées à l’époque de Dioclétien
ou à l’époque immédiatement suivante, sont de ce type; mais dans aucun de ces cas, l’attribu-
tion des pièces de l’intérieur à l’époque de construction des murs d’enceinte n’est assurée.
Même au IVe siècle le fait n’est pas certain: Dair al-Khaf 61 se place d’après une inscrip-
tion (No. 229) entre les années 367 et 375; mais cette inscription est-elle en place ou le Dair
n’a-t-il pas plutôt été reconstruit à une date postérieure?

Quant aux nombreux “camps romains” que M. Alt et M. Franck 62 ont relevé dans
l’Arabie Pétrée, des doutes sont permis quant aux dates fixées par les auteurs. Nous pensons
qu’il s’agit dans bien des cas ou de fortifications byzantines remaniées à l’époque musulmane
ou simplement de constructions musulmanes. Les nombreux relevés publiés par A. Musil dans
Palmyrena et dans Edom demanderaient une vérification sur place.

En fait, les monuments de ce type, datés de façon sûre, n’apparaissent qu’au Vie siècle.
Nous voulons parler des camps d’al-Andarïn (Fig. 11 ) 63 et de Stable ‘Antâr64 datés respecti-
vement de 558 et de 577-78 (Inscriptions). Ils montrent le type pleinement développé: rec-
tangle de 70 m x 70 m environ, des tours d’angle carrées ou hexagonales et des constructions à
l’intérieur, adossées au mur d’enceinte. Mais se sont des pièces isolées ou des portiques,
jamais des appartements.

57 D. Talbot Rice, “The Oxford Excavations at Hîra,”
Ars Islamica, I (1934), 51-57; idem, Journ. Royal Cen-
tral Asian Soc., XIX (1932), 254; idem, “The Oxford
Excavations at Hira, 1931,” Antiquity, VI (1932), 276.

58 Poidebard, op. cit., pp. 37, 39, 4°, 47, 49, S2, 102,
187.

S9Ibid., Pis. XV, XVI, pp. 37, 43, 50, 53, 54, 56.

60 Brünnow et Domaszewski, op. cit., II, 49-59.

61 Butler, op. cit., Div. II A, Fig. 127.

62 F. Franck, “Aus der ‘Araba,” Zeitschr. d. deutsch.

Palaestinavereins, LVII (1934), 191-280; A. Alt, “Aus
der ‘Araba,” ibid., LVIII (1935), 1-74; idem, “Roe-
mische Kastelle und Strassen,” ibid., LVIII (1935), 75 sq.
et idem, “Limes palaestinae,” Palaestinajahrb., XXVI
(1930), 43 sq.

63 H. C. Butler, “Ancient Architecture in Syria, Sec-
tion B, Northern Syria,” Publ. Princeton Univ. Archaeol.
Expedition to Syria, Division II (1908), II, PI. VIII.

m Ibid., PI. IX.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

8.5

En ce qui concerne Kusair al-Hallâbât 6S que M. E. Herzield classe 66 avec al-Kastal
parmi les antécédents directs de Mshattâ et qui, en effet, seul parmi les forts byzantins,
montre de véritables appartements à l’intérieur, nous sommes convaincus que c’est un fort
byzantin, remanié à l’époque omeyyade. Les quatre appartements à l’intérieur ne seraient pas
l’oeuvre des architectes du Vie siècle; nous les attribuons à la même époque que la mosquée
qui se trouve à proximité et qui, sans aucun doute possible, est d’origine omeyyade.67

De l’autre côté de l’Euphrate, en Mésopotamie et en Iran, les exemples de camps fortifiés
sur plan rectangulaire, existent bien qu’ils soient plus rares. M. de Morgan 68 a relevé, à proxi-
mité de Kasr-i-Shîrln dans les monts Zagros un camp sassanide fortifié de i8o m x 180 m à
tours arrondies qui semble avoir eu des constructions à l’intérieur, une grande bâtisse indé-
pendante et des pièces adossées aux murs d’enceinte (Fig. 12). Comme les autres ruines du
site, ce fort appartiendrait à l’époque de Chosroès II (590-627). Le “Khan” de Kaha-i-
Kuhna 69 situé également dans les monts Zagros est du même type: enceinte rectangulaire de
32 m x 103 m, des tours arrondies, des pièces voûtées le long de l’intérieur, adossées aux murs
d’enceinte. Date et origine en sont incertaines, mais sans doute antérieures à l’époque
musulmane.

Quant aux traits généraux du plan, les antécédents des châteaux omeyyades se trouvent
donc également en pays byzantin et en territoire sassanide. Avec des nuances cependant: les
dimensions de nos châteaux sont celles de certaines forteresses byzantines. Les tours par
contre s’apparentent bien plus étroitement à celles des forteresses sassanides.

Les fortifications sassanides sont en effet pourvues de tours-contreforts arrondies comme

65 Butler, op. cit., Div. II A, Fig. 55, p. f 2.

66 Mshattâ, Hîra und Bâdiya,” p. 116.

67 Trois inscriptions nous permettent d’entrevoir
l’histoire de l’édifice. (Butler, op. cit., Div. III A,
p. 21 sq.) Une première (No. 17) de l’année 212
qui n’est plus en place, attribue la construction du
“novum castellum” au légat Phurnius Julianus. Une
deuxième, dont le plus grand fragment se trouve en place,
est de l’année 529. (No. 18). Elle parle d’une rénovation
de la forteresse sous le gouverneur Flavius Anastasius.
Un troisième texte enfin (No. 20) un édit de l’empereur
Anastase 1er (491-518) se trouve dispersé sur différentes
pierres dans les murs de la cour.

Quelques faits précis ressortent de ces textes pour
l’historique de la forteresse. La construction du premier
fort remonte au début du Ille siècle. Puis, il a été re-
construit en 529. Mais alors une question se pose: le
texte de l’édit d’Anastase a-t-il été gravé sur les murs du
fort romain ou sur ceux de la forteresse byzantine? Le
dernier cas semble plus probable pour la raison que voici :
l’edit d’Anastase étant un texte très important pour l’or-
ganization militaire de la régien il eût fallu des raisons
particulières pour que le préfet de Justinien. Ier le dispersât
complètement. Nous n’en connaissons pas et nous pré-

férons supposer une troisième reconstruction, postérieure
à l’année 529. C’est au moment de l’installation des
Arabes dans ce château qu’elle a dû avoir lieu. Les
Musulmans semblent avoir refait l’intérieur, en laissant
peut-être debout certaines parties (d’où s’expliquerait
le fait que la moitié de l’inscription No. 18 est en place).
Il se peut même que le curieux mode de construction du
mur d’enceinte, alternance d’assises de pierres blanches
et noires, soit dû aux architectes omeyyades. Butler
s’étonne de ne trouver aucune trace de travail arabe dans
toute la construction, bien que la présence des Musul-
mans soit assurée par la mosquée. Nous pensons que
tout ce que Butler considère comme oeuvre du Vie siècle
est d’époque omeyyade et que les Arabes ont reconstruit
une grande partie de l’intérieur au moment même où
ils exécutèrent la mosquée. La forme des pièces et la
construction montrent, en accord avec d’autres monu-
ments (au Djabal Sais, p.e.), que les architectes omey-
yades s’adaptent parfois aux traditions du pays.

68 J. de Morgan, Mission scientifique en Perse (Paris,
1896), IV, PI. 49, p. 354, Figs. 213, 214.

69 E. Flandin et P. Coste, Voyage en Perse (Paris,
185 1— [54] ) , IV, PI. 213, et texte, I, 464.

HENRI STERN

les châteaux omeyyades. La tour-contrefort arrondie est d’ailleurs la construction-type des
fortifications du proche Orient depuis au moins deux millénaires.70 M. E. Herzfeld en a relevé
de beaux exemples à Dastadjird (Zindân).71 La liste peut en être allongée sans difficulté; la
plupart des fortifications prémusulmanes, situées sur le Tigre et relevées par M. E. Herzfeld 72
ont des tours-contreforts rondes. M. Reuther, dans le premier rapport sur les fouilles de Ctési-
phon,73 décrit les tours des murailles de cette ville comme des contreforts massifs sur plan
semi-circulaire. Sir Aurel Stein dans son voyage à travers la Perse méridionale 74 n’a rencontré
que des fortifications sassanides ou plus anciennes à tours-contreforts, pour la plupart rondes.
Ces tours massives sont à tel point caractéristiques de l’architecture sassanide qu’il faut se
demander si le plan que J. de Morgan a levé du fort de Kasr-i-Shïrïn est exact sur ce point. Ne
serait-ce pas seulement les tours des deux côtés de l’entrée et dont il donne une coupe qui
comporteraient des pièces à l’intérieur? Quoiqu’il en soit la tour-contrefort arrondie est l’un
des caractères de l’architecture militaire persane et c’est par là même qu’elle se distingue de
l’architecture militaire romaine.75

Sur ce point donc, les rapports entre les châteaux omeyyades et l’architecture sassanide
se révèlent étroits. Ces rapports se manifestent jusque dans le décor qui est appliqué aux
tours et aux murs. L’extérieur des forts romains et byzantins reste sans décor, le mur se pré-
sente sous un aspect sévère: appareil de pierre de taille, parfois en alternance avec des assises
de briques. Par contre, dans les architectures sassanide et omeyyade une arcature aveugle est
souvent appliquée aux murailles. O. Reuther décrit le mur d’enceinte de Ctésiphon ainsi:
“les murailles et les tours étaient décorées d’arcades de 2 m 25 de large qui couvraient les
murs et les tours.” À la façade de FIrüz-Äbäd, au palais de Ctésiphon, à l’intérieur du palais
de Shâpùr l’arcade aveugle en frise, aux colonnettes engagées, fait les frais exclusifs de la déco-
ration. De même, les enceintes des deux Kasr al-Hair et de Kasr al-Kharâna, seuls conservés
ou restitués jusqu’au faîte des murs, en sont décorés. L’arcature aveugle, aux colonnettes
engagées, se trouve partout dans l’architecture omeyyade (extérieur du Dôme du Rocher,
porte d’entrée de l’Acropole d’ ‘Ammân). Avant l’époque omeyyade elle était inconnue dans
l’architecture syrienne.

Résumons-nous: l’enceinte carrée aux pièces adossées à l’intérieur des murs se trouve
également dans les fortifications byzantines et sassanides. Les dimensions de l’enceinte des châ-
teaux omeyyades sont celles de certains forts byzantins, mais plan et construction des tours, ap-
plication du décor sont empruntés aux modèles sassanides.76

70 Cf. l’enceinte de Sendjirli: fouilles de Jacoby et
Luschan.

71 Sarre et Herzfeld, op. cit., II, 89-93; IV, PI.
CXXVII.

72 Ibid.

73 O. Reuther, Die deutsche Ktesiphon-Expedition
im Winter 1928-1929 (Berlin, 1930).

74 A. Stein, “An Archaeological Tour in the Ancient
Persis,” Iraq, III (1936), Pt. 2, 123 ff.

75 Ces tours, comme celles des châteaux omeyyades,
étaient accessibles du chemin de ronde (cf. Reuther, op.
cit.) et elles ont dû être pourvues pour la défense, soit
d’une plateforme protégée par des créneaux, soit comme
à Ukhaidir et à Kasr al-Hair d’une petite pièce couverte
au dernier étage.

76 Nous nous abstenons d’une étude des autres formes
du décor, ne serait-ce que dans le cadre architectural,
nos renseignements sur Khirbat al-Minya et sur Khirbat
al-Mafdjar étant trop fragmentaires encore. Il semble

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

Innovation importante nous semble-t-il. L’aspect du fort byzantin en est foncièrement
altéré. Encore une fois, aucun compte n’est tenu du matériel de construction. Bien que la
tour-contrefort soit une forme architecturale créée pour la construction en brique, les archi-
tectes omeyyades s’en servent dans la construction en pierre. Leur but paraît évident: repro-
duire l’impression que donnent les forteresses sassanides.

Cette imitation des modèles persans peut s’expliquer par un fait dont nous aurons à parler:
le cérémonial de la cour omeyyade est calqué sur celui des Sassanides. Dans les demeures
comme dans les moeurs, les Khalifes veulent paraître comme les Rois des Rois.

Voyons ce que les constructions à l’intérieur des enceintes nous apprennent sur ce point.

Les Baits. — Ils se caractérisent par quelques traits que nous avons indiqués: pièce centrale
oblongue, perpendiculaire à la cour, accompagnée des deux côtés de deux ou de plusieurs
pièces, de moitié moins longues, couvertes dans la plupart des cas de voûtes en berceau
(Mshattâ, Tuba, Khirbat al-Mafdjar, al-Kharâna, sans doute aussi Djabal Sais et al-Kastal) .
L’éclairage et l’aération s’en font par la porte et par de petites lucarnes, aménagées en haut
du mur du fond (assurées pour Mshattâ, Tuba, Kharâna). De véritables fenêtres manquent.
Les nombreuses variantes du plan ne portent que sur les pièces latérales. Elles sont tantôt
oblongues (Mshattâ) tantôt carrées (Kharâna), tantôt perpendiculaires à la pièce principale
(Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbï). Les disponibilités de l’espace dans l’enceinte ont sans doute déter-
miné ces variantes. Les traits essentiels du type paraissent constants.

Ce noyau, ce logement clos se retrouve dans les appartements, les “baits” de certains
palais sassanides. À Kasr-i-Shïrïn (Fig. ij) et à Hawsh Kuri (Fig. 14), 77 tous deux des palais
de la fin du Vie siècle, des logements à trois pièces, oblongues et parallèles, perpendiculaires
à une cour, se groupent derrière les salles de réception. Ces pièces étaient couvertes de voûtes
en berceau oblongues, celle du milieu grande ouverte sur la cour. Elles n’ont pas de fenêtres.
Les différences d’avec le bait omeyyade ne portent que sur les pièces latérales; elles ne sont
pas subdivisées par une paroi, le plan est toujours oblong et l’entrée se fait, non pas par la salle
du milieu, mais par la cour directement.

C’est le type du ïwân persan dont nous pouvons suivre l’évolution depuis le début de
notre ère. À Assour,78 à Hatra,79 à Ctésiphon, les ïwâns à trois pièces, oblongues, perpendicu-
laires à une cour, couvertes de voûtes en berceau oblongues sont le type unique de l’apparte-
ment d’apparat et d’habitation. Hatra montre que le morcellement des pièces latérales n’est
pas seulement un fait de l’époque omeyyade. Le rétrécissement des portes d’entrée des châ-

que ce décor ne se développe qu’autour de l’entrée et
que le reste du mur soit nu. Le caractère essentielle-
ment non-militaire de cette architecture s’en accentue.

77 Pour Kasr-i-Shïrïn on consultera de Morgan, op.
cit., pp. 341 ff.; Bell, op. cit.; O. Reuther, “Säsänian Archi-
tecture. A History,” A Survey of Persian Art (London
and New York, 1938), I, où l’on trouvera un plan établi
par Miss Bell et O. Reuther qui corrige utilement ceux de

Morgan et de Miss Bell. — Hawsh Kurï a été exploré par
J. de Morgan; cf. op. cit., pp. 357-60, PL 41.

78 W. Andrae-H. Lenzen, “Die Partherstadt Assur,”
Wissensch. Veröffentlichungen d. deutschen Orient-
Gesellsch., LVII (1933).

79 W. Andrae- H. Lenzen, “Hatra,” Wissensch. Ver-
öffentlichungen d. deutschen Orient-Gesellsch., IX et XXI
(1908-12).

HENRI STERN

teaux omeyyades s’expliquerait par les conditions climatériques de la Syrie qui exigent, paraît-
il, une fermeture plus étanche.

Les habitations prémusulmanes de Syrie et de Palestine sont essentiellement différentes.
Certes, le plan tripartite leur appartient aussi. Dans l’ouvrage de Butler, on trouvera de
nombreux plans de logements à trois pièces.80 M. Sauvaget 81 insiste sur l’importance de ce
plan pour la genèse de l’habitation omeyyade. Elle nous paraît être assez mince. Les pièces
sont, dans la plupart des cas, de plan carré. Ni par la forme, ni par la couverture la direction
perpendiculaire à la cour, ce mouvement vers une cour, essentiel au ïwân persan et au bait
omeyyade, n’est marqué. Les trois pièces sont d’habitude de dimensions égales, celle du milieu
ne se détache aucunement. Elles sont éclairées et aérées par de grandes fenêtres et couvertes
de plafonds plans en pierre de taille. Ces dalles reposent, au mur sur des consoles, au milieu
de la pièce sur un grand arc transversal. C’est le plan et la construction classiques des loge-
ments syriens des Ve, Vie et Vile siècles.

D’ailleurs la répétition de ce plan-type de trois pièces dans une même maison, les apparte-
ments clos, juxtaposés, n’existent pas en Syrie avant l’avènement des Arabes.

Sans doute, les architectes omeyyades ont-il continué de construire à la manière syrienne
aussi. Au Djabal Sais (bâtiments D, E, F), à Kusair al-Hallâbat nous en trouvons la preuve.
Mais cette manière de bâtir semble réservée aux habitations de caractère simple. Le trait
nouveau des châteaux omeyyades est précisément l’apparition du bait.

Remarquons cependant que les appartements de notre groupe, à part Mshattâ, ne présen-
tent que la moitié d’un véritable bait iranien. En Perse et en Mésopotamie (Kasr-i-Shïrïn,
Ukhaidir) le bait comporte deux logements à trois pièces, placés sur les côtés opposés d’une
cour particulière: l’un composé de pièces spacieuses, l’autre de pièces exigües (Kasr-i-Shïrïn,
Sâmarrâ). (Appartements d’hiver et d’été). Parfois les deux logements comportent des
pièces de dimensions égales: par exemple les “Harem” au nord de la partie est du palais Shîrîn
(cf. plan de Bell et Reuther) et au palais d’UUiaidir. Alors, le plan s’en identifie avec celui des
baits de Mshattâ.

Ainsi le bait de Mshattâ devient le véritable trait d’union entre le bait iranien proprement
dit et celui des Omeyyades. Il conserve du premier la disposition exacte des pièces: les deux
logements tripartites, placés des deux côtés d’une cour, le tout hermétiquement clos. Les pro-
portions du plan cependant, l’aménagement des portes, la subdivision des pièces latérales sont
omeyyades. À Kasr al-Tüba, on conserve encore la cour particulière, mais le deuxième loge-
ment est supprimé. Dans les autres châteaux (Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbï, al-Kharâna, al-Kastal,
Khirbat al-Minya, Khirbat al Mafdjar) on se contente d’un seul logement qui est répété
quatre ou six fois autour de la cour commune.

Cette simplification du bait sassanide paraît être une adaptation du plan irano-mésopo-
tamien aux conditions de vie syriennes. L’accès direct de l’appartement à travers une cour

80 Butler, op. cit., Div. II, B, p. 93, Fig. 106, p. 136, 81 Dans son article: “Remarques sur l’art sassanide.

Fig. 156 et ailleurs. Questions de méthode à propos d’une exposition,” Revue

des études islamiques, 1938, pp. 113-31.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

commune, entourée d’un portique, se trouve partout dans les maisons de la région. Les plans
des habitations syriennes du Vie siècle, de la maison de Flavios Séos,82 d’une maison à al-
Tüba,83 montrent cette cour entourée de pièces diverses.

La technique des constructions persanes n’est pas conservée non plus au même degré dans
tous les baits omeyyades. À Mshattâ et à al-Tüba, au Djabal Sais, aux deux Khirbat et à al-
Kharâna, il n’a subi que peu de changement. Dans ce dernier les plafonds, pour n’être pas des
voûtes oblongues n’en sont pas moins d’un caractère purement mésopotamien: chaque pièce est
divisée par trois arcs transversaux en quatre compartiments, chacun couvert d’une voûte en
berceau barlongue. L’un des plus anciens exemples de ce mode de construction s’est trouvé à
Assour,84 dans la salle à piliers (No. 18). 85 À Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbî les pièces sont couvertes
de poutres en bois, à al-Kastal de larges voûtes barlongues. Nulle part dans notre groupe nous
n’avons retrouvé des plafonds du type syro-palestinien.

Ainsi donc, dans ses traits essentiels, le bait omeyyade est persan: plan et construction
des pièces, répétition du groupe autour d’une cour, séparation rigoureuse des appartements
proviennent de la tradition sassanide. La suppression de la cour particulière et, partant, d’une
moitié du logement, l’accès direct de l’appartement à travers la cour commune sont des con-
cessions faites à la tradition syrienne.

Ce plan des habitations omeyyades est le résultat d’une réunion d’éléments persans et
syriens, il signifie la création d’un type nouveau de logement oriental.

La Salle du Trône de Mshattâ.— La, salle du trône de Mshattâ est l’exemple le plus frap-
pant et à la fois le plus brillant de ce mélange des styles, de ce “syncrétisme” dans l’art omey-
yade (Fig. 15). C’est à ce titre que nous en abordons l’étude, car il n’est point dans notre in-
tention d’en reprendre l’analyse d’ensemble. Elle a été tentée à plusieurs reprises depuis que
Strzygowski a mis tout sa science au service de cette question. Ce n’est que sur cet aspect du
problème que nous nous appesentirons.

La salle “triconque” ou la salle à trois absides a toujours été comparée, depuis Strzygow-
ski, aux sanctuaires d’églises chrétiennes, aux baptistères, à des salles d’hypogées, et encore à
des salles d’architecture impériale romaine.86 Dans tous ces cas, sans exception, nous nous
trouvons devant des monuments à plan carré, élargi par trois ou quatre absides, dont le dia-
mètre égale la longueur des côtés du carré central. Il y a bien des variantes du type. Tantôt
les absides se joignent directement au carré central; par exemple aux couvents blanc et rouge
de Sohâg (Fig. 16), 87 au baptistère de Tébessa,88 à l’église de Dair Dôsï en Syrie89 (à part
l’abside orientale). Dans d’autres cas, les absides terminent les bras d’une croix: église de

82 Butler, op. cit., Div. II, A, pp. 36 ff., Fig. 322.

83 Ibid., Div. II, B, p. 22, Fig. 20.

84 Andrae-Lenzen, “Die Partherstadt Assur.”

85 Voyez à Ukhaidir ce mode de construction employé
dans les salles No. 32, 33, 40 du plan d’O. Reuther.

86 La question a été résumée par le R. P. H. Vincent

dans Bethléem le sanctuaire de la Nativité (Paris, 1914),
pp. 27-31, note et figures.

87 S. Clarke, The Christian Antiquities in the Nile Val-
ley (Oxford, 1912), Pis. XLVIII et XLIX.

88 S. Gsell, Monuments antiques de l’Algérie (Paris,
1901), II.

89 Vincent, op. cit., p. 29, Fig. 4.

HENRI STERN

Ruhaiba au Nadjaf,90 église de la Nativité à Bethléem pour ne mentionner que des exemples
syro-palestiniens. En Afrique du Nord, en Italie, le type est largement répandu.

Ce sont là les monuments qui ont été invoqués pour démonstrer l’origine du plan de la
salle du trône de Mshattâ. Strzygowski, champion de la thèse “orientale,” aussi bien que ses
adversaires étaient d’accord sur ce point.

Nous pensons que la salle à triconque de Mshattâ se distingue par un détail assez signifi-
catif de ces églises. Dans celles-ci, le diamètre des absides et la longueur des côtés du carré
central se correspondent, le plan est nettement trilobé. Par contre, à Mshattâ, le diamètre des
absides (5 m 25) étant à peine plus long que la moitié des côtés du carré central (9 m 80 à
9 m 90), la pièce centrale reste avant tout une salle carrée pourvue de niches. Les angles de
ce carré rentrent dans le mur. Une différence essentielle en résulte d’avec les édifices à forme
trilobée: dans le plan c’est le carré qui domine, dans la construction c’est la coupole.

Deux groupes des monuments s’offrent comme modèles-types de ce plan. Les uns appar-
tiennent à la tradition syro-palestinienne, les autres à l’art persan.

Le premier groupe ne comprend que des monuments de dimensions réduites, des petites
salles carrées, qui se trouvent en Syrie, dans les bains (Fig. 17) 91 ou dans certaines maisons
d’Antioche dégagées récemment.92 La salle carrée est pourvue de niches ou de petites pièces
voûtées. Les coupoles ont sans doute été dans la plupart des cas construites sur pendentifs.
Les petites dimensions, l’absence d’une nef oblongue nous les font éliminer comme modèles de
notre salle du trône.

Bien plus étroits nous semblent être les rapports de la salle de Mshattâ avec les salles
du trône sassanides.92“

Celles-ci se composent, pour la plupart, d’une énorme salle carrée à coupole sur trompes,
précédée d’une nef oblongue.

En voici les exemples les plus importants: les salles du palais de Firüz-Äbäd (Fig. 18)
et de Kaba-i-Dukhtar près de cette ville 93 toutes deux du début du règne sassanide (223), du
palais de Dâmghân 94 attribué au Vie siècle (Fig. 19), de Kasr-i-Shïrïn, de l’époque de Chos-

90 Ibid., Fig. 6.

91 Cf. le bain de Brad en Syrie, dans Butler, op. cit.,
Div. II, Sect. B, p. 301, Fig. 331: salle carrée à coupole
et à deux niches; diamètre de la coupole 3 m environ.
Il est évident que les salles à coupole des bains omey-
yades: Kusair ‘Amra, Hammam al-Sarakh (publié par
Butler, op. cit., Div. II, Sect. A, Appendix, pp. xix-
xxiv), Djabal Sais, ‘Abda et al-Ruhaiba (dans A. Musil,
Arabia Petraea [Wien, 1908], II, 79-82 et 106) ne
font que continuer une tradition du pays. La salle
carrée à coupole et à deux niches de Khirbat al-Minya
est à classer dans ce groupe.

92 Antioch on-the-Orontes, II, The Excavations of
*933-36 (Princeton, London, The Hague, 1938). Dans
la villa de plaisance à Yakto (17/18-H/J) on trouve
deux salles à coupole: I, 52 et II, xo. La salle I, 52

surtout se compare à celle de Mshattâ du fait que les
angles du carré rentrent dans le mur. M. Lassus (ibid.,
p. 114) veut y reconstituer, pour cette raison, une
coupole sur trompes. Les exemples des bains omeyyades
prouvent que, dans des pièces de petites dimensions, ce
plan n’impose pas la coupole sur trompes.

92a M. Sauvaget a déjà signalé cette ressemblance
entre les plans de la salle du Trône de Mshattâ et de
certaines salles des châteaux sassanides, cf. ci-dessus note
81, p. 88. Mais il semble rejeter toute influence sas-
sanide pour Mshattâ.

93 Relevé par A. Stein, “An Archaeological Tour in
the Ancient Persis,” Iraq, III (1936), 123 ff., avec plan
et description.

94 Découvert par les missions du Musée d’Art et du
Musée de l’Université de Pennsylvania. Cf. A. U. Pope,

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

roès II (590-627) {Fig. 13) et enfin du palais de Kish (Fig. 20) où, il est vrai, la salle carrée
est réduite à une petite pièce avec une niche.95 Dans ces monuments, l’évolution du plan de la
salle du trône se présente de façon très claire.

À Firüz-Äbäd et à Kaka-i-Dukhtar, le type n’est pas encore formé: d’autres coupoles se
placent de chaque côté de la coupole centrale, la nef oblongue et la salle carrée sont séparées
par des parois comme toutes les autres pièces du palais. Mais à Kasr-i-Shïrïn et surtout à
Dâmghân, le plan de Mshattâ paraît réalisé: une seule salle carrée à coupole est précédée
d’une salle oblongue qui, par deux rangées de colonnes, est divisée en trois nefs. À Dâmghân,
pièce oblongue et salle carrée communiquent par une porte qui est aussi large que la nef
principale. Comme à Mshattâ donc, ces deux pièces ne sont plus séparées l’une de l’autre,
elles forment un ensemble bien uni, le centre du palais, entourées de pièces d’habitation.

D’ailleurs, les quatre portes des salles carrées qui, communiquant avec les pièces
adjacentes, se comparent aux ouvertures cintrées des niches de Mshattâ. Elles sont de
largeur variable: Firüz-Äbäd 1 : 7 (ouverture : côté du carré), Kaka-i-Dukhtar 1 : 3,
Dâmghân 3 : 5 (Mshattâ 1:2). C’est à Shâpür, où la pièce oblongue manque, que la res-
semblance du plan de ce palais à coupole avec notre salle carrée est la plus frappante: aux
quatre côtés du carré s’ajoutent quatre petites pièces, creusées dans l’épaisseur du mur et
voûtées en berceau.96 Le côté en est le tiers du côté de la pièce centrale. En remplaçant ces
pièces par nos niches, le plan de la salle carrée de Mshattâ est réalisé.

Etant donné cette parenté étroite avec l’architecture persane, nous voudrions remplacer
la coupole sur pendentifs, reconstituée à Mshattâ par Brünnow et par Schultz, par une
coupole sur trompes. Nous savons bien que les coupoles d’al-Minya, d’al-‘Amra et du Ham-
mâm al-Sarakh reposent sur pendentifs. Mais dans les trois cas les dimensions sont petites
et, surtout, la technique de construction des murs est syrienne. À Mshattâ, les murs en briques
de la salle du trône ainsi que les voûtes et les murs des pièces adjacentes sont exécutés, on l’a
constaté à maintes reprises, dans une technique purement iraquienne. Il nous semble donc
parfaitement légitime de reconstituer sur cette salle carrée une coupole sur trompes persane
plutôt qu’une coupole en brique sur pendentifs dont nous n’avons aucun exemple dans la ré-
gion.97

“Splendid New Example of Sasanian Art: Sculptured
Ornament from a Recently Found Palace at Damghan,”
Illus. London News, CLXXX (1932), 482-84; Reuther,
“Sasanian Architecture,” pp. 579-83.

95 Découvert par les mêmes missions — cf. “New Light
on Early Persian Art,” Illus. London News, CLXXVIII
(1931), 261; “Persian Art Discoveries at Kish,” ibid.,
p. 369; “A Christian Nave at Kish? The Discovery of a
Second Neo-Persian Palace,” ibid., p. 697; “‘Palace
Three’ The Bath of the Sasanian Kings at Kish,” ibid.,
p. 273; et L. C. Watelin, “The Sasanian Buildings near
Kish,” A Survey of Persian Art, I, 584-92.

96 Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de la mission
du Musée du Louvre à Shâpür dans G. Salles, “Chapour,”
Revue des arts asiatiques, X (1936), No. III, 117-23; et
R. Ghirshman, “Fouilles de Châpour (Iran),” Revue des
arts asiatiques, XII (1938), No. I, 12-19. — C’est d’ail-
leurs un plan très répandu dans l’art persan du Ille
siècle; cf. la coupole de Bâze-Hür (Baza’ür) publiée par
A. Godard, “Les Monuments du feu,” Atjiâr-é lrän, III
(1038), Fase. I, 54 ff.

97 La coupole en brique de l’église de Kasr Ibn
Wardân peut être laissée de côté ici. La construction,
à la manière byzantine en est absolument différente de
tout ce que nous savons de l’architecture de la région.

HENRI STERN

Ainsi donc, le caractère essentiellement persan de cette salle du trône nous paraît démontré.
Il paraît clair que l’architecture en a été empruntée par les Khalifes omeyyades à la cour sassa-
nide, en même temps que le cérémonial. M. E. Herzfeld 98 rattache les salles du trône des Abbas-
sides à celles des rois persans. Comme ceux-ci les Khalifes disposaient d’une salle de réception
publique (Madjlis al-‘âmm bs? ), c’est la grande nef oblongue, et d’une salle de récep-
tion privée (Madjlis al-khâss ), la salle carrée. Il aurait fallu placer dans cette série

la salle du trône de Mshattâ. Nombreux sont en effet les indices qui prouvent une imitation
du cérémonial sassanide par la cour des omeyyades. L’image du prince à Kasr al-Hair al-
Gharbl rend celui-ci dans l’attitude, dans les vêtements et avec les insignes des rois sas-
sanides.99 À Kusair ‘Amra, comme à Kasr al-Hair, le prince omeyyade porte une couronne qui
est le souvenir du diadème ailé des shahs persans. A. Musil,100 s’appuyant sur les textes de
l’époque, décrit une réception de Walïd II; comme les rois persans, le Khalife est caché
aux yeux des profanes par un rideau qui, sans doute, était suspendu à l’entrée de la salle à
coupole. Ainsi la salle du trône de Mshattâ devient le chaînon d’une série qui va des salles
du trône sassanides à celles des Abbassides: la salle à coupole est la salle privée, la nef la salle
publique.

N’en oublions cependant pas les maints aspects syro-palestiniens. Certes, la conception
première, le schéma salle à coupole-nef oblongue sont sassanides. Les niches cependant sont
un motif de l’architecture du pays, les salles à coupole des bains le prouvent. Les colonnes,
tout le détail architectural, les profils, les chapiteaux, sont syro-palestiniens de forme et d’ex-
écution. Cette adaptation d’un modèle persan à l’architecture du pays va plus loin encore.

Les rapports de proportion entre l’espace libre et la masse des murs sont syriens. Les
murs et les supports à Mshattâ sont bien plus minces que dans les édifices persans où d’énormes
piliers renforcent d’épaisses murailles. Il s’en trouve dans notre monument une élégance, un
affinement des proportions, une largeur des espaces intérieurs qui sont bien loin de la lourde
majesté des constructions sassanides.

C’est, pensons-nous, cette interpénétration des caractères de deux styles qui fait la valeur
particulière de cette oeuvre.

Un modèle persan est adapté à la tradition antique du pays, la lourde grandeur de
l’Orient est assouplie par l’élégance du goût grec. Mais retournons après cette diversion à
l’étude du plan courant.

Les Portes d’Entrée. — Les mêmes tendances ont présidé à la création du plan des portes
d’entrée. On en distingue deux types dans les châteaux omeyyades. Le plus simple que nous avons
signalé à Mshattâ, à al-Hair, à al-Kastal et à al-Kharâna, est une pièce oblongue, divisée par des
arcs transversaux en plusieurs compartiments couverts de voûtes. L’autre qui se trouve à al-

98 E. Herzfeld, Samarra, Aufnahmen und Unter-
suchungen zur islamischen Archäologie (Berlin, 1907),

p. 8.

99 Cf. Schlumberger, op. cit., p. 352 ff.

100 A. Musil, Kusejr ‘ Amra (Wien, 1907), p. 159:

“Den Empfang bei Walïd schildern uns viele von seinen
Besuchern. Fast alle erwähnen einen Saal mit einem
Vorhänge gegenüber dem Eingänge; der Vorhang wrar
bald auseinandergeschoben, bald zusammengezogen. . . .”

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

Tüba, à Khirbat al-Mafdjar, à Khîrbat al-Minya et au Djabal Sais se caractérise par l’ad-
jonction à la salle oblongue d’une pièce carrée qui est, soit comprise dans l’épaisseur d’une
tour semi-circulaire ( Khirbat al-Minya, Djabal Sais), soit placée entre deux tours qui flan-
quent l’entrée (al-Tüba et Khirbat al-Mafdjar). Cette pièce était couverte, à Khirbat al-
Minya d’une coupole, à Khirbat al-Mafdjar d’une voûte en berceau. À Kasr al-Tüba et au
Djabal Sais les plafonds n’en sont pas conservés.

Des pièces carrées ou barlongues en guise de salles d’entrée, construites isolément, se
trouvent encore aux jardins des deux Kasr al-Hair. Tantôt une tour ronde coupée en deux
parties renferme une salle rectangulaire,101 tantôt un petit édifice carré à quatre contreforts
comprend deux pièces,102 ou encore la pièce carrée forme un petit pavillon isolé (Figs. 21-

23) -m

La salle oblongue servant d’entrée est courante dans l’architecture du pays. À al-
Andarïn,104 (Fig. 11 ) aux casernes de Kasr Ibn Wardân 105 et dans bien d’autres constructions
militaires d’époque byzantine elle est en usage. Les relevés ne permettent pas d’en reconnaître le
détail architectural ni la couverture. Le plan cependant est celui des entrées simples des châ-
teaux omeyyades.

L’emploi de la pièce carrée à voûte ou à coupole comme entrée, par contre, est d’origine
sassanide. À Kasr-i-Shïrïn, à l’angle sud-ouest du palais, se trouve une porte d’entrée 106
dont le plan est tout à fait semblable à celui de la porte d’entrée de Khirbat al-Minya: pièce
carrée à coupole avec des niches, semi-circulaires dans le monument omeyyade, rectangulaires
dans le palais sassanide (Fig. 13). N’est-ce d’aillleurs pas la même transformation que la salle
du trône des palais sassanides a subie dans l’art omeyyade? 107 Toujours la niche rectangulaire
est remplacée par la niche semi-circulaire.

Voici d’autres exemples de ces portes d’entrée sassanides: Hawsh KurI (Fig. 24 ),108
porte d’entrée de Takrït, 109 sur laquelle M. Herzfeld reconstitue une voûte d’arêtes. Elle est
pourvue de deux contreforts qui rappellent les tours en quart de cercle de Khirbat al-Minya,
d’al-Kharâna, du Djabal Sais. Un bel exemple d’époque omeyyade, mais de pur style sas-
sanide est la porte d’entrée de l’acropole d’ ‘Amman.110 À Rakka, au début du IXe siècle, une
porte d’entrée toute analogue, à voûte d’arêtes, a été construite pour la citadelle.111

L’entrée typiquement omeyyade à deux salles successives, carrée et oblongue, est re-
produite à Ukhaidir, sous l’influence directe des monuments de Syrie, pensons-nous.

101 A Kasr al-Hair al Sharkî, cf. Seyrig, op.cit., Fig. 1.

102 Ibid., Fig. 2.

103 A Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbî : Schlumberger, op. cit.,
PI. XXX.

104 Butler, op. cit., Div. II, Sec. B, PI. VIII.

105 Ibid., Div. II, Sec. B, Fig. 39.

106 Miss Bell (plan dans Ukhaidir) reconstitue une
coupole sur le carré.

107 Herzfeld, Samarra, relève la parenté entre les
portes d’entrée et les salles de réception en pays oriental.
(Importance de la “porte” dans le cérémonial des sul-

tans.) Le groupe de nos entrées, apparentées étroitement
aux salles à coupole, illustre bien ces faits.

108 De Morgan, op. cit., IV, PI. 41, en haute à droite.

109 Sarre et Herzfeld, op. cit., I, 219, ff., Fig.

110 Nous avons fait allusion à ce monument dans
notre étude sur “Les Représentations des conciles dans
l’église de la Nativité à Bethléem,” Byzantion, XI (1936),
137 ff, note ie. Depuis une mission italienne en a entre-
pris le relevé et l’étude.

111 Sarre et Herzfeld, op. cit., III, 356 sq., Figs. 330-
32, III, PL LXV.

HENRI STERN

Quant à la tour sur quart de cercle, elle provient sans doute aussi de la Perse sassanide.
M. A. Godard a publié le plan d’un autel de feu à Cahàr-tàk dont la façade comporte aux
angles des piliers-contreforts en quart de cercle.112 Le monument serait d’origine sassanide.

Comme la salle du trône de Mshattà, les doubles salles d’entrée des châteaux omeyyades
sont un curieux mélange d’éléments sassanides et syriens. Dans le premier cas, le plan est
persan, mais altéré par la tradition locale, dans l’autre cas un plan courant, banal de la ré-
gion est amplifié par l’adjonction d’une pièce d’architecture sassanide. Cette combinaison
d’éléments hétérogènes est parfaitement réussie. De toute évidence, les architectes cherchent
à enrichir et à varier des plans traditionnels, à rehausser l’éclat d’une cour qui veut frapper
l’imagination par le faste de ses demeures.

La Technique. — Avant de conclure, un mot sur la technique qui confirmera ce qui précède.
Des éléments purement syro-palestiniens, les murs d’enceinte en pierre de taille avec blocage, la
porte tripartite de la salle du trône de Mshattà, l’entreé de Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbï, sont combinés
avec des parties mésopotamiennes: baits en brique de Mshattà ou d’al-Tüba, le haut des murs
d’enceinte de Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbl. Parfois (al-Kharàna) le caractère mésopotamien de la
construction est sans mélange,113 parfois le caractère syrien domine (al-Kastal).

Avant l’arrivée des Omeyyades dans le pays peu d’éléments mésopotamiens s’étaient
glissés dans l’architecture de la région. La construction en pierre de taille, pratiquée depuis
longtemps dans le pays domine. À côté d’elle, la manière byzantine de bâtir avec des briques
et des pierres de taille par assises alternantes s’était introduite. Mais on a constaté à maintes
reprises que la construction en brique des Byzantins est essentiellement différente de celle de
la région mésopotamienne.114 La dimension des briques, l’épaisseur des couches de mortier, le
mode de construction des voûtes (en tranches verticales en Mésopotamie, en tranches hori-
zontales à Byzance, arcs ovoïdes ou même brisés en Mésopotamie, cintrés à Byzance), tout
diffère.

C’est cette manière mésopotamienne que les Omeyyades introduisent dans le pays. Ce
nouveau langage architectural provoque une véritable révolution du style qui engendrera
l’architecture musulmane proprement dite.

Conclusion. — Quelles conclusions tirerons-nous de cette étude des origines? Les châteaux
omeyyades sont le produit d’un mélange des styles. L’apport mésopotamien est très important,
plus important, nous semble-t-il, qu’on n’a voulu admettre jusqu’ici. Nous avons rencontré les
tours-contreforts, les baits, le plan de la salle du trône, les salles d’entrée carrées dans l’art sassa-
nide.

Mais le problème ne paraît point résolu ainsi. Le trait marquant de ces châteaux, présence

112 Godard, op. cit., pp. 32 ff., Figs. 14-22.

113 Une analyse exhaustive d’al-Kharâna fait encore
défaut. Les caractères mésopotamiens de la construc-
tion et du décor n’en ressortent pas moins clairement de
l’étude des R. P. Jaussen et Savignac. Une comparaison

avec Ukhaidir et avec des monuments sassanides ne
laisse aucun doute à ce sujet.

114 Cf. surtout Strzygowski, op. cit.; et Herzfeld dans
les articles sur Mshattà que nous avons mentionnés.

Fig. i — Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbï

Fig. 2 — Khirbat al-Mafdjar

D’après Schneider et Püttrich-Reignard

Fig. 3 — Khirbat al-Minya

Fig. 4 — Khirbat al-Minya, Partie Sud

D’après Jaussen et Savignac

Fig. 6 — Kasr al-Kharâna

D'après Brünnow et Domaszewski

Fig. 7 — Mshattä

D’après Sauvaget •

Fig. 9 — Djabal Sais

Fig. io — Al-Kastal

Fig. ii — Fort d’al-Andarïn

D’après Butler

D’après Brünnow et Domaszewski

Fig. i6 — Sohäg, Couvent Rouge

? .... î* .... ,IQ 3i2 Îî£ j0’"

D’après Reuther

Fig. 18 — Château de Fïrüz-âbâd

Courtyard

D’après Kimbali,

D’après Watelin

Fig. 20 — Kish, Salle du Trône

Fig. 19 — Dämghän, Salle du Trône

D’après de Morgan

Fig. 24 — Hawsh Kurï

D’après Schlumberger

Fig. 23 — Kasr al-Hair al-Gharbî

D’après Seyrig

Fig. 21 — Kasr al-Hair al-Sharkï

D’après Seyrig

Fig. 22 — Kasr al-Hair al-Siiarkï

Figs. 21-24 — Portes du Jardin

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

des appartements dans une enceinte fortifiée, ne s’est retrouvé ni dans l’art sassanide ni dans
l’art syro-palestinien.

Nous savons bien qu’au palais de Dioclétien à Split, cette combinaison avait été réalisée
quatre cents ans avant les Omeyyades et de façon bien plus grandiose que dans aucune des
oeuvres que nous avons étudiées. Mais la distance dans le temps, les différences de style
excluent une influence de l’une sur les autres. Les monuments intermédiaires manquent. Parmi
les nombreux restes de maisons d’habitation et de camps qu’a livrés le sol de la Syrie et de la
Palestine aucune habitation fortifieé pourvue de tours de défense ne s’est trouvée qui soit
comparable à nos châteaux.

Certes, des fouilles futures peuvent réserver des surprises. Mais jusqu’à nouvel ordre,
nous considérerons le plan des châteaux que nous avons étudiés comme une création des archi-
tectes omeyyades. L’originalité en restera pour nous un fait acquis dans tous les cas: sa valeur
propre réside dans cette réunion d’éléments sassanides et syriens. Le faste et la magnificence
des palais persans s’associent à la précision et à l’équilibre de plans puisés dans la tradition
antique.

Cet art est comme un point de cristallisation des écoles d’architecture de l’immense empire
omeyyade. Placés à la croisée des chemins d’Orient et d’Occident, et au point de rencontre de
deux époques, de l’antiquité qui disparaît et du moyen-âge qui s’annonce, les artistes omey-
yades ont trouvé les formules qui vont déterminer l’aspect de l’art autour de la Méditerranée
orientale pendant les siècles à venir.

INFLUENCES

L’influence qu’a exercée cette architecture omeyyade sur l’art musulman nous paraît en
effet très importante. Les éléments nous manquent cependant pour en apprécier toute
l’étendue. Les régions de l’Est, la Mésopotamie, l’Iran sont presqu’ inexplorées à cet égard.
Aussi revenons-nous aux châteaux d’Ukhaidir et de Sâmarrâ et aux quelques khans ou forts
arabes que Miss G. L. Bell mentionne pour montrer l’action de cet art à l’Est.115

Ukhaidir et Kasr al-‘Âshik de Sâmarrâ 116 nous paraissent dériver, à nous, en ligne droite
du plan de Mshattâ. Le schéma, enceinte rectangulaire fortifiée à tours-contreforts arrondies,
cour également rectangulaire, entourée de constructions qui s’adossent au mur d’enceinte, et
plus particulièrement la division du plan en trois bandes oblongues dont celle du milieu com-
porte, en enfilade, la salle du trône, la cour et le corps du bâtiment d’entrée, sont les mêmes à
Mshattâ et aux châteaux mésopotamiens. Ceux-ci, il est vrai, suivent plus étroitement sur
certains points, la tradition persane. Les proportions de l’enceinte, rectangulaire, non carrée,
la construction et le plan de la salle du trône, l’emplacement de cette dernière, séparée de
l’enceinte par un appartement privé du prince, semblent marquer un retour à la tradition
purement sassanide (comparez Kasr-i-Shïrïn, Fîrüz-Âbâd). Décor et technique enfin sont

115 G. L. Bell, Amurath to Amurath (London, 1924) Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Samarra et dans

et dans Ukhaidir. Sarre et Herzfeld, op. cit.

116 Relevé et étude de Herzfeld, Erster vorläufiger

HENRI STERN

mésopotamiens. Toutefois, les caractéristiques essentielles du schéma de Mshattâ restent
conservées.

Nous l’avons dit: aussi longtemps que l’existence du château-fort d’al-Hïra restera une
hypothèse, Mshattâ sera le point de départ de cette série de châteaux.

Quant aux petits forts, ‘Atshân, Khubbâz et d’autres que Miss Bell a relevés en Méso-
potamie 117 et qui sont les antécédents des innombrables khans musulmans des siècles suivants,
le “khan” de Kal‘a-i-Kuhna les préfigure à l’époque sassanide. Si toutefois le plan carré
devient de rigueur dans la région, c’est sous l’action sans doute de l’architecture omeyyade.
De même, maints détails, la forme des portes d’entrées, les dimensions et la disposition des
tours-contreforts ne s’expliquent, pensons-nous, que par l’influence de cette architecture. Ces
forts sont comme des schémas sassanides, trempés dans l’art omeyyade. Cet art leur a imposé
certains caractères qui leur resteront acquis pour les siècles à venir.

En Afrique du Nord aucun monument apparenté à nos châteaux n’avait été signalé
jusqu’ici. Il en est cependant qui en reproduisent le plan-type assez fidèlement. M. G.
Marçais, en décrivant le rabât de Sousse (couvent-château-fort),118 daté du IXe siècle,119 dit
que la disposition générale en est tout à fait celle d’un fort byzantin. “Elle comporte une en-
ceinte rectangulaire dont les angles et le milieu des côtés sont flanqués de tours. Muraille et
saillants sont ornés vers le sommet d’une suite d’arcatures formant corniche. Six des tours
sont arrondies.” 120

M. Marçais compare alors le plan de cet édifice à celui du fort byzantin al-Gastal, près
de Tébessa.121 Le tracé général du plan en est, en effet, celui du ribât. Mais celui-ci se distin-
gue du fort byzantin précisément par les traits qui lui sont communs avec nos châteaux.122 Les
tours paraissent être des tours-contreforts tandis qu’à al-Gastal elles comportent des pièces à
l’intérieur avec entrée du côté de la cour. Le plan semi-circulaire des tours intermédiaires ne
se trouve nulle part dans les forteresses byzantines, nous l’avons dit. Le décor de la muraille
l’arcature aveugle, caractérise les enceintes des châteaux omeyyades et les fortifications sas-
sanides. Enfin, la disposition des pièces à l’intérieur est tout à fait celle que nous savons: deux
étages de pièces, appuyées à l’enceinte, et un portique entourent une cour carrée. À al-Gastal,
d’après le plan de Gsell, il n’y a pas de pièces à l’intérieur. Comme à Khirbat al-Minya, à
Khirbat al-Mafdjar et à Mshattâ, l’aile sud comporte à Sousse au premier étage une mosquée
dont le mihrab est creusé dans l’épaisseur du mur d’enceinte. Enfin, un minaret rond, sur socle
carré, se dresse à l’angle sud-est (cf. Khirbat al-Mafdjar où le minaret, également sur plan
carré, se trouve dans le mur du kibla).

117 Bell, Ukhaidir, PI. 46; et idem, Amurath to Amu-
rath, p. 120 ff., Figs. 164-68; p. 86, Fig. 69 et Fig. 129;
p. 139, Fig. 76.

118 G. Marçais, Manuel d’art musulman (Paris, 1926),

I, 47-50-

119 La date de construction ne ressort pas avec
précision du texte: pour le mur d’enceinte, deux dates
(821 et 859), de construction et de reconstruction, sont

indiquées.

120 Ibid., pp. 47 ff.

121 Gsell, op. cit., II, 360 et S. Gsell, “Notes sur
quelques forteresses antiques du département de Con-
stantine,” Recueil des notices et mém. de soc. archéol.
de Constantine, XXXII (1898).

122 Nous tirons certaines de nos observations du
croquis, Fig. 20, p. 48, que M. Marçais ajoute au texte.

ARCHITECTURE DES CHATEAUX OMEYYADES

Il y a là, nous semble-t-il, assez d’éléments pour considérer ce ribât comme provenant de
l’architecture omeyyade.

L’architecture civile de la région, ainsi que celle de la Mésopotamie, n’étant pas encore
assez connue, il faut nous contenter, pour le moment, de ces quelques remarques sur l’action
de l’architecture omeyyade. Elles nous paraissent suffire pour en indiquer le rayon d’influence.
De la Mésopotamie jusqu’en Afrique du Nord, l’art musulman du IXe siècle porte son em-
preinte ; certes pour en connaître toute la portée notre vue sommaire est trop fragmentaire.
Mais notre but n’était que d’insister sur le tournant que signifie l’avènement des Omeyyades
dans l’histoire de l’architecture du proche Orient.123

summary 124

The author defines the special features of the Umayyad castles, viz., a square enclosure
with round buttressed towers and dimensions based on a unit of 35 m. equal to 100 ft.; in the
interior, around a square court with portico, are apartments, or “baits,” backed up against the
enclosure wall in a repeat arrangement and hermetically closed from each other.

The camp of al-Kastal, which has so far been attributed to the Romans or the Ghassä-
nids, should be added to the series of the Umayyad castles. It has the same plan, the same
dimensions, and the same interior arrangement. The presence of a mosque, which dates from
the same period, confirms this attribution, which allows one to study the genesis of the style
from a new point of view.

The origins of this type of plan were then investigated. It does not represent the imita-
tion of a fixed prototype, but it is the result of a combination of various elements, viz., the pro-
portions of the Syrian square and the manner of building Sasanian enclosure walls and but-
tressed towers. The “baits,” the throne hall of Mshattä, the double entrance halls of al-Tüba,
Khirbat al-Minya, Khirbat al-Mafdjar, and Djabal Sais derive from Sasanian art, but are al-
tered by elements of Syrian architecture.

Conclusion. — As long as the castles of the Lakhmids of al-Hira are known to us only from
the accounts of Arab authors and are not a historical reality the Umayyad castles should be
considered as the starting point of Muslim civil architecture.

Influences. — The castles of Ukhaidir and of Samarra derive from Mshattä, and the ribät
of Susa (Sousse) derives from the simple plan of the Umayyad castles. These have exercised
an influence reaching from Mesopotamia to North Africa.

123 Communication de 16 juin 1946:

Par une série de circonstances défavorables, il m’a
été impossible de prendre connaissance de l’article de
M. J. Sauvaget, “Remarques sur les monuments omey-
yades,” Journ. asiatique, CCXXXI (Janvier-Mars,

1939), 1-59. Cet article n’a effectivement paru qu’en 1940
ou 1941, mais je n’ai pu en prendre connaissance que ces
jours-ci.

124 Translated from the French text of the author.
—ED.

MATERIAL FOR A HISTORY OF ISLAMIC TEXTILES UP TO THE
MONGOL CONQUEST BY R. B. SERJEANT

CHAPTER VII *

TABARISTÄN, KÜMIS, DJURDJÄN

TABARISTÄN

E ARE FORTUNATE IN POSSESSING FROM EARLY SOURCES A FAIRLY COMPLETE RECORD OF

the textiles in the province of Tabaristän (Map i). Ibn Isfandiyär (613 h. [1216-17 a.d.]),
who wrote a history of this district, had access to authors, both Arabic and Persian, whose
works have now perished. The most interesting piece of information which he has preserved
is that the Ispahbad, or semi-independent ruler of that country, sent the Abbasid Mansür
exactly the same tax as had gone to the Sasanians. Mansür had previously sent him a crown
and a robe of honor presumably of the tiräzl kind. This seems also to have been a custom
handed down from the Sasanians. The tax consisted of three hundred bales of green silk
carpets and quilts, the same amount of good colored cotton, the same amount of gold-em-
broidered garments of the kind called Rüyäni and Lafüradj. (from Lapür, south of Mamätlr
on the river Babul), and the same amount of saffron of a kind unequaled in all the world.1

This records the unbroken continuity of the Sasanian system into Muslim times, prob-
ably with a similar type of indirect government. Other instances of this type of tax in kind
have been previously discussed. It was a Sasanian custom to take the textiles peculiar to the
province as part of the tax.

In the reign of Sulaimän ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, the general Yazid ibn Muhallab invaded
the country and forced the Ispahbad to make peace on condition that an annual tribute of
4,700,000 dirhams, four hundred ass loads of saffron, and four hundred men each bearing a
shield (turs), a silver cup (djam fidda), a head scarf (tailasän), and a silk saddle cushion
(numruk harlr) was sent.2

The introduction of Tabari stuffs to the caliphs, of which the historian Tabari gave an
account, seems to coincide with the payment of the tribute to Mansür (136-58 h. [ 753—
74 a.d.]) in Tabari carpets:

Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Sulaimän said: “I heard my father say that the first person to use
Tabari as upholstery was al-Mahdi. That was because his father ordered him to stay in Rayy.
Tabari carpets were brought to him from Tabaristän, and he used to use them as furnishings. Then
snow and willow twigs (khiläf) were placed round it. Heavy cloth (khaish) was procured for them,
and Tabari stuff found favor with them.” 3

* See preceding chapters in Ars lslamica. Vols. IX 2 Balâdhurï, Futüh al-Buldän, ed. M. J. de Goeje

(1942) and X (1943). (Leyden, 1866), p. 338. trans. by P. Hitti (New York,

1 Ibn Isfandiyär, History of Tabaristän, trans. by 1916), II, 44.

E. G. Browne (Leyden-London, 1905), p. 118. 3 Tabarï, Annales, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leyden, 1879-

1901), ser. Ill, I, 536.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

Djähiz 4 in the second century, knew that the “best tailasäns are the Tabari Rüyäni
kind, then those of Amul, then the Egyptian kind (Misri), then the Kümis kind.” He,5 how-
ever, placed “Tabari robes (aksiya), then wool (lined?) with wool” after the Egyptian
woolen robes (aksiya) and those of Fars, Khuzistan, Shiraz, and Isfahan. In another work 6
of his he said: “I bought a white Tabari robe (kisä’) for four hundred dirhams, and from
the evidence of their eyes, the people thought it was Kümisï worth a hundred dirhams.”
Djähiz lived into the reign of al-Mu‘tasim in the early third century, and there is a very
pretty story in the Aghänt 7 the subject of which is just those very Tabari carpets. The
singer Ishäk ibn Ibrahim related:

One day Abdallah ibn Tähir brought forth to me two verses on a scrap of paper, and said:
“These are two verses which I found on an Isbahbudhi Tabari carpet (bisät) , which was brought
to me from Tabaristän. I should like you to set them to music for me.” I read them over, and they
went as follows:

Fast close that weeping eye, refrain
From unavailing passion’s strain.

Alas, my tears scarce cease to fall,

But plaintive flute doth grief recall.

So I set them to music, and on the morrow I took them to him. He admired the song and pre-
sented me with a magnificent gift. He became very much enamored of the lines and often used to
ask for them to be sung. I taught them to all his slave girls, and his fondness for the song became
widely known.

Now, one day al-Mu‘tasim was in the audience room and the spring furnishings (fursh al-
Rab!‘) were being displayed in front of him, when a carpet of brocade (bisät al-dibädj), extremely
beautiful, passed in front of him, with the above couplet upon it, and in addition, the following:

Death I know can be none other
Than to be without thy lover.

Two loves lie there within thy heart.

Both old and new can claim their part.

So he ordered the carpet to be taken to Abdallah ibn Tahir, saying to the messenger: “Tell him, I
know of your fondness for having this verse sung. So when this carpet fell into my hands, I thought
I should like to make your pleasure in it complete.”

Abdallah was very pleased at being sent this message, made much of it, and said to me: “By
Allah, Abu Muhammad, in truth, my pleasure at the completion of this verse is greater than my
pleasure in anything else. So set them to music along with the first two verses.” I did so.

The note of the editor of the A ghânï suggests that these carpets were named after the

4 Djähiz, “Al-Tabassur bi ’l-Tidjara,” Revue de V

acad. arabe de Damas, XII (1351 h. [1932 a.d.]), 338.

Djähiz died in 257 h. (869 a.d.), aged over ninety, so his

information is particularly early and valuable.

5 Op. cit., pp. 337-38. Cf. Tha'älibi, Thimär al-
Kidüb (Cairo, 1326 h. [1908 a.d.]), p. 433.

6 Djähiz. Kitäb al-Hayawân (Cairo, 1905-7), III, 8.

7 Abu ’l-Faradj al-Isfahänl, Kitäb al-Aghäni (Cairo,
1927-36), V, 428-29.

IOO

R. B. SERJEANT

little town of Isfahbad8 in Djllän (Gilan). This, however was a little-known place, and I
venture to suggest that these garments were named after the Ispahbads themselves and were
a part of the tribute which came to Baghdad. They ruled there both before and after the
Muslim conquest as a semi-independent dynasty, and according to a later passage they con-
trolled at least a part of the industry.

Ya‘kübi 9 (278 h. [891 a.d.] ) knew that “in it are made Tabari carpets (fursh), and
Tabari robes (aksiya).” Ibn al-Fakih10 reported that “the people of Tabaristän, Dailam,
and Kazvin share in the manufacture of Rüyäni, and Ämuli robes, and also in the manufac-
ture of the garment shustaka, napkins (mandil), and many kinds of cloth.” 11 The Kitäb
al-Muwashshä 12 mentions that fashionable ladies wore Tabari cloaks (ardiya).

Istakhri said of the products of Tabaristän:

From Tabaristän there is brought ibrism silk, which supplies all countries, there being no town
in Islam which has more ibrism than it has. ... In Tabaristän many garments of silk (harir) are
made which are transported everywhere. The same is true of wool, carpets (fursh), and robes
(aksiya).13

Other manuscripts mention in addition “various kinds of ibrism silk garments, robes,
wool, linen shirts (midra‘), napkins (mandil), Tabari carpets (fursh), cloaks for women
(mi’zar), silk (harir) garments.” He further noted that the eggs of the silkworm (bizr düd
al-ibrism) always came from Djurdjän.

Ibn Hawkal gave an amplified and modified version:

In the whole of Tabaristän ibrism silk is manufactured and taken to all countries. In the whole
world there is no country, in Islamic or heathen territory, which can come anywhere near Tabari-
stän for abundance of ibrism silk. . . . From Tabaristän various kinds of ibrism silk garments, and
precious robes of wool (aksiya al-süf), admirable camelots (barrakänät) come. In all the world

8 See G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Cali-
phate (Cambridge, 1905), p. 175. The difference in
pointing, and the substitution of dhäl for the Persian
däl make no difference to the above suggestion.
Mustawfi Kazwini (Hamd-Alläh Mustawfî Kazwini, The
Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qidüb, trans. by
G. Le Strange, Gibb Mem. Ser. [Leyden-London,
1919], XXIII, II) called the city Isfahbad, but Yäküt
spelled it as Isfahbudän ( Mu‘djam al-Biddün, Geographi-
sches Wörterbuch, ed. F. Wüstenfeld [Leipzig, 1866-73]).

9 Ya'kübi, Kitäb al-Boldän, Bibliotheca Geograph-
orum Arabicorum (— B.G.A.) (Leyden, 1892), VII, 277.

10 Ibn al-Fakih, Compendium libri Kitäb al-Boldän,
ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1885), V, 254.

11 See the “Glossary” to Tabari, Annales, ed. M. J.
de Goeje (Leyden, 1879-1901), p. cccxi, “shustaka.” I
suggest here a reading “shasätik” as a plural of “shustaka,”
instead of “sh s tan k” of the text. Bïrünï, Kitäb al-
Djamähir, ed. F. Krenkow (Hyderabad, 1938), p. 202,

mentions sh stakät garments which are made from asbes-
tos called by the Persian emperor Ädhar-shust. It was
so named because, as related in many passages in the
geographers, when they wished to clean this material
they placed it in the fire. He mentioned, referring to the
year 390 h. (1000 a.d.), one of these cloths which was
tested in the fire. The asbestos was made into threads
mixed with cotton flakes. Generally, however, the name
seems simply to mean a napkin of some kind. Cf. Ibn
Abi ‘Usaibi'a, ‘Uyün al-Anbä’ fi Tabakät al-Atibbä’, ed.

A. Müller (Cairo, 1299 h. [1882 a.d.], Preface, Königs-
berg, 1884), I, 217, where a sh staka is used to contain
a drug. See also Tha‘àlibî, Yatimat al-Dahr (Damascus,
1866-67), HI, 178, where a word “sustadja” is men-
tioned.

12 Al-Washshä’, Kitäb al-Muwashshä, ed. R. E. Brün-
now (Leyden, 1886), p. 126.

13 Istakhri, Viae regnorum . . . ., ed. M. J. de Goeje,

B. G.A. (Leyden, 1870), I, 212.

Map i — Tabaristän, Kümis, Dturdtàn. and D tibàl

102

R. B. SERJEANT

there are no robes which fetch the price that their robes, camelots, and mitraf cloaks do. When
they contain gold they are like those of Fars in price or even a little more expensive. In Tabaristän
too, are made napkins of cotton (mandil) and Sharäbiya (a type of linen garment), plain and gold-
embroidered cushions (dasätik sädidja wa mudhahhaba), there being no equal to their gold (woven
garments) for wear known among their clothes. Their cotton is like the cotton of Sa‘da with a yel-
lowish tint, a fine kind of it being made which is much liked by the people of Iraq.14

Makdisi 15 remarked fields of flax (kattän), and of hemp (kunnab) in it and said:

From Tabaristän come the robes (aksiya) which are preferable to those of Fars, tailasäns, and
garments of coarse cloth (khaish) which are borne to various lands. A great quantity is sold in
Mecca, worth a few dirhams, or a great many, which are called “Meccan” in the west, as well as
bands (or girdles, lafäfa).16

On the authority of al-Yazdädi (who wrote between 366 and 403 h. [976 and 1012
a.d.] ) , Ibn Isfandiyär gave an account of the cloth trade in Tabaristän:

In early times there used to come to Tabaristän and thence be exported to the most distant
countries in the earth, satin (atlas), woven stuff (nasadj), priceless ‘Attäbi, and different kinds of
precious brocade, valuable siklätün .... ibrashim curtains (parda) and those of wool, women’s fine
cloaks (mi’zar), felts (anmäd) better than Dj ah rami, carpets “in relief” (käli-hä-yi-mahfürl).17

From here these cloths must have been spread among the tribes of Central Asia, for
he also said that Amul was a market for goods for the Saksin and Bulghär up to his own
time, and that traders from Iraq, Syria, Khurasan, and the borders of Hindustan used to
come to Amul for trading.

The Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif has little to add to the other authors:

Among its own special products are the orange robes (aksiya), napkins of coarse cloth (manädil
khaish), womens’ dresses (ghiläla, usually yellow, and often transparent), and cotton caps worn
under the turban (‘arakiyät18). One of the strange things about Tabaristän is that dirhams are
taken to it for the purchase of napkins (mandil) from all countries, but they are not taken from it.19

With regard to the custom of sending Tabari textiles to Mecca it is relevant to quote the
following passage from Ibn Isfandiyär:

The Ispahbad Husäm al-Dawla wa’l-Din Ardashir ibn Husain, the ruler of Tabaristän (about
579 h. [1183-4 a.d.]) used to set aside five bales of silk for the poor of Mecca, and five bales

14 Ibn Hawkal, Viae et régna. . . . Descriptio ditionis
moslemicae, B.G.A., ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leyden, 1873),
II, 272.

15 Makdisi (Mukaddasi), Descriptio imperii Mos-
lemici, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1876; 2d ed., 1906), III, 354.

16 Op. cit., p. 367.

17 Ibn Isfandiyär, op. cit., p. 33.

18 R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes (2d

ed. ; Paris, 1927) ; and idem, Dictionnaire détaillé des noms
des vêtements chez les Arabes (Amsterdam, 1854), for
ghiläla and ‘arakïya. Cf. R. Levy, “Notes on Costume
from Arabie Sources,” Journ. Royal Asiatic Soc., 1935.
For “ ‘arakiyät” perhaps “midra1” should be read with
some MSS of Istakhri supra.

19 Tha'älibi, Latä’if al-Ma'ärif, ed. P. de Jong (Ley-
den, 1867), p. 112.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

103

(rizma) of silk for the poor of Medina. These bales were sold in Baghdad and the money spent on
cotton cloth (kirbäs) which was divided among the poor.20

The same author, also,21 in a list of taxes which Saladin prescribed on conquering Egypt,
included an impost of two hundred forty dinars on the Tabari manufacture levied at Misr
and Cairo.

Kalkashandi 22 stated, too, that the Fatimid caliphs had their audience chamber “hung
with Dabîkï curtains (sutur) and carpeted with splendid Tabari of Tabaristân worked with
gold (mudhahhab). . . . the throne (sarir) was covered with Kurkübî.”

After the Mongol conquest, Abu ’l-Fidä’ merely quoted Ibn Hawkal and Muhallabi for
Tabaristân’s richness in silk.23 Gaston Wiet24 has described a silken stuff which he deduces
to have come from Tabaristân, and which has human figures represented upon it. The date
lies about the middle of the fifth century h. (eleventh century a.d.).

The stuffs which we have been discussing were for the most part made in Amul, the
capital of the province. Djähiz placed the tailasäns made in Rüyän before those made in
Amul, but these two are the best kinds. Ibn Rusta25 and Ibn al-Faklh26 both remarked that
the Tabari carpets were made there, but the Hudüd al-Älam 27 has a fairly long list:

Amul produces linen cloth, kerchiefs of linen and cotton (dastâr-i-khïsh), Tabari rugs (farsh),
Tabari mats (hasir) . . . white Kümish giliins with gold thread (zarbaft), and Dailami gilims of
zarbaft, various kerchiefs shot with gold thread (dastärcha-yi-zarbäft), shagreen (kimukhtä).

MakdisI28 said that Amul had “wonderfully lovely carpets, and pillows (mirfak). . . .
it has a profitable trading center and skilled weavers.” Yäküt remarked: “In Amul are made
the Tabari prayer carpets (sadjdjäda) and the lovely carpets (busut).” 29

To the east of Amul lie Mamâtïr and Sari; the former according to the Hudüd al-
lÄlam 30 produced thick reed mats (hasïr-ï-sitabr) of very good quality; the latter which was
once capital of the province was noted for silk tissues (djâma-yi-harïr va-parniyän). Mus-
tawfi31 mentioned cotton as grown at Sari in plenty, but not silk, except in the dependencies
of the near-by Kabüd Djäma.

The Rüyäni stuffs have been remarked upon several times in the course of this chapter.
The Hudüdn adds that it exports “the red woolen cloth from which raincoats (bârânï) are

20 Ibn Isfandiyär, op. cit., p. 71.

21 MakrizI, Khitat, Description topographique et his-
torique de l’Egypte, trans. by U. Bouriant and P. Casa-
nova (Paris, 1900-20), p. 298.

22 Kalkashandi, Subh al-A‘shà (Cairo, 1331 h. [1913
a.d.]), III, 499.

23 Géographie d’Aboulféda, texte arabe .... par M.

Reinaud et M. le Bon Mac Guckin de Slane (Paris, 1840),
p. 432, trans par M. Reinaud (Paris, 1847-83),

H, 175-

24 G. Wiet, “Un Tissu musulman du nord de la
Perse,” Revue des arts asiatiques, X (1936), 1730.

25 Ibn al-Fakïh, op. cit., p. 150.

26 Op. cit., p. 304.

27 Hudüd al-Älam, trans. by V. Minorsky, Gibb
Mem. Ser. (London, 1937), n.s., XI, 134-35.

28 MakdisI, op. cit., p. 359.

29 Yäküt, op. cit., I, 68.

30 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 134. Spelled Mämatlr by
Minorsky.

31 Mustawfî Kazwïnî, op. cit., p. 157.

32 Hudüd al-‘Âlam, p. 135; E. Wallis Budge, The
Chronography of Bar Hebraeus (Oxford, 1927), I, 298.

104

R. B. SERJEANT

made as well as blue gilîms which they use in Tabaristän itself.” Balädhuri 33 noted that
Rüyän and Damavand paid their tax to the early Arabs in money, garments (thiyäb), and
vessels (äniya).34

KÜMIS

Most of our authors have commented on the stuffs of Kümis, and in a list of exports,
Djähiz35 gave “garments of goat hair or camel hair (amsäh), umbrellas (djitr), and taila-
säns of wool (süf),” but he added that those tailasäns manufactured in Egypt, were of a su-
perior quality. Ya'kübï 36 said: “Its inhabitants are Persians, and the most skilled of people,
making the valuable Kümis garments of wool.” Ibn Rusta 37 found that “most of what is
sold there consists of white robes (aksiya) for tailasäns.” Istakhrl 38 and Ibn Hawkal39 agreed
that “well-known robes (aksiya) are taken from Kümis to the provinces.” The Hudüd 40
differs little: “Kümish produces Kümis textiles and fruit of which there is no like in the
world. They are exported to Djurdjàn and Tabaristän.”

Makdisï was rather more explicit:

Now, concerning Kümis, they have white napkins (mandil) of cotton with a border (mu‘lama),
both great and small, plain (sädhidj) and with a selvage (muhashshät), the kerchiefs of which may
fetch two thousand dirhams. They have also robes (aksiya), tailasäns, and fine woolen cloth
(thiyäb).41

Damghan in particular produces “dessert napkins with fine borders (dastär-hä-yi-sharäb
bä ‘alam-hä-yi-nikü)” according to the Hudüd?2 Yäküt43 noted that excellent napkins
(mandil) were made in Simnän.

PJURDJÄN

The province of Djurdjän manufactured silks, mainly at the capital, a town of the same
name which was finally taken by Yazid ibn Muhallab about (98 h. [716 a.d.] ). The Djirâb
al-Dawla of Ma’mün’s reign gives a thousand pieces of ibrism silk as being part of the tribute
of the caliphs. Among its exports, Djähiz44 numbers soft yarmak45 and excellent ibrism silk.

The geographers bear a monotonous similarity to one another. Ya‘kübï46 said that
various garments of silk (harir) are made there, and Ibn al-Fakih: “The people of Djurdjän
have ibrism silk not to be found in other countries, and it is exported everywhere. They are

33 Balädhuri, op. cit., text, p. 338, trans., II, 44.

34 W. Barthold, Turkistdn at the Time of the Mon-
golian Invasion, Gibb Mem. Ser. (London, 1927), n.s., V,
283-84.

35 Djähiz. “Al-Tabassur bi ’1-Tidjära,” op. cit., p. 345.

36 Ya'kübï, op. cit., p. 276.

37 Ibn Rusta, Kitäb al-ATäk al-Nafisa, ed. M. J. de
Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1892), III, 170.

38 Istakhrl. op. cit., p. 21 1.

39 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 271.

40 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 135.

41 Makdisï, op. cit., p. 367.

42 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 135. Or is this “napkins of
sharäb,” a kind of linen cloth, and not “dessert napkins?”

43 Yäküt, op. cit., HI, 141.

44 Djähiz, op. cit., p. 344-

45 This word is uncertain and the editor suggests
narmak (Persian narmah), which was a kind of soft
cloth. Cf. Tabari, op. cit., Glossary, and Diawälikl.
Kitäb al-Mu‘arrab, ed. E. Sachau (Leipzig, 1867), p. 146.

46 Ya‘kübï, op. cit., p. 277.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

I05

skilled in the manufacture of brocade, veils (or headcloths, makäni‘), garments, curtains
(sutür).”47

Istakhri said: “A great deal of ibrism silk is produced there. The eggs of the silkworm
for the ibrism silk of Tabaristän are brought from Djurdjän, but no ibrism is produced from
the eggs of the silkworm of Tabaristän.” 48 Ibn Hawkal added: “The Khazars have no

clothing (malbüs), which is only brought to them from the districts of Djurdjän, Tabaristän,
Azerbaijan, Rüm (Byzantium), and the neighboring lands.”49 This is an important indica-
tion of the large trade with Central Asia. The famous textile found by Stein in Turkestan
may have come from this region.50 Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi 51 noted that it had Djurdjän! figured
wash! stuff.

The Hudüd 52 says: “Djurdjän produces black silk textiles, long veils (vikäya), brocade
(dibä), and raw silk textiles (kazin).” MakdisI53 added: “The people of Djurdjän have
silken veils (makänk kazzlyät) which are taken to Yemen. . . . and brocade of a poor kind.”
The Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif 54 says: “Some of the products special to Djurdjän are the black gar-
ments, stuffs of twisted (silk?) (mabärim), poppy colored garments (?) (thayäb khashkhä-
shïya) which excel in fineness and softness the Haffi garments of Nishapur.” Yäküt55
quoted the earlier authorities for the exports of ibrism silk. Like so many other cities,
Djurdjän was ruined at the Mongol conquest.

The second city in Djurdjän province was Astaräbäd, a place of remote antiquity, the
refounding of which is, however, ascribed to the Arabs at the end of the first century of the
Hijra. Istakhri 56 informed us that “much ibrism silk is derived from it. They have a sea-
port (Äbaskün) and sail thence to the Khazars, Derbent, Djil, and Dailam.” The Hudüd
al-Älam 57 says: “From it come many silk textiles such as mubram and za‘fürï.” MakdisI58
knew that “most of them are weavers of kazz silk, and skilled in its manufacture.”

The port of Djurdjän and Astaräbäd was Äbaskün of which the Hudüd al-(Älam says:
“It is a haunt for merchants from the whole world trading on the Khazar (Caspian) Sea.
. . . From it come shagreen and woolen cloth (klmukhta va-pashmln).” 59

After the conquest by the Mongols, Mustawfl60 noted that cotton and silk still were
found in Djurdjän and silk in Astaräbäd.

47 Ibn al-Fakih, op. cit., pp. 254-56.

48 Istakhri, op. cit., p. 213.

49 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 283.

50 A. Stein, On Ancient Central Asian Tracks (Lon-
don, 1933), which contains an illustration in color of a
textile with the Sasanian pearl pattern.

51 Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, Al-lkd al-Farïd (Cairo, 1331 h.
[1913 a.d.] ) , IV, 268.

52 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 133.

53 MakdisI, op. cit., p. 367.

54 Tha‘àlibî, op. cit., p. 114.

55 Yäküt, op. cit., II, 49.

56 Istakhri. op. cit., p. 213.

57 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 134.

58 MakdisI, p. 358.

59 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 134.

60 Mustawfl Kazwïnî, op. cit., p. 156.

Supplementary note. — Hamadhânî ( Makämät [Bei-
rut, 1924], pp. 119 f.), in the fourth century of the
Hijra, describes a napkin (mindll) : “It is the weave of
Djurdjän. and the manufacture of Arradjän. I came
across it and bought it; my wife made part into trousers
(saräwll), and part into a napkin. Twenty dhirä* were
used for the trousers, but I took this length out of her
hands and gave it to the embroiderer (mutarriz) so that
he made it as you see and gave it a tiräz (or embroid-
ered it, tarrazahä).”

CHAPTER VIII
DJIBÄL

T HE GREAT CERAMIC CENTER RAYY OR RHAGES, IN DJIBÄL, BESIDES BEING FAMED FOR A KIND

of lustered pottery and the ware painted with human figures, was also a noted textile center.
From several indications in the passages quoted below, this city must have been the possessor
of a tiräz factory.

BaihakI 1 related that the wife of Khälid ibn Barmak sent her husband a robe (kiswa)
from Rayy, a folded (or shrunk) tailasän (tailasän mutabbak). Though no textiles are men-
tioned in the Djirâb al-Dawla as being sent with the tribute to Baghdad, another early source,
Djähiz,2 gave a list of exports which includes “yarmak3 weapons, fine cloth, combs (amshät),
royal kalansuwa caps (al-kalänis al-malikïya) , Kassi stuffs (al-Kassiyät), and linen.” Ibn
al-Fakih4 (290 h. [903 a.d.]) added that, besides silk (harlr) and glazed (mudahhan) pot-
tery, they had white tirâzï robes (aksiya), and splendid white tailasäns, as well as the
munaiyar garments (a stuff with a double warp).

Istakhri remarked: “There are brought from Rayy and exported to other places, cot-
ton which is taken to Baghdad and Azerbaijan, munaiyar garments, striped cloaks (abräd),
and robes (aksiya).”5 The Hudüd mentions: “It produces cotton stuffs (kirbäs), cloaks
(burd), cotton. From its districts come woolen tailasäns (scarves worn on the head).”6
Makdisi, too, hardly varied, noting that their cloth (bazz) is renowned, and that “there are
brought from Rayy the cloaks (burd), the munaiyar, cotton, and needles (masäll).”7

The Latä’ij al-Ma‘ärif states:

The specialties of Rayy are the cloaks (burüd) of Rayy of the same description as the Yemen
cloaks called ‘Adanlyät because of their resemblance to the cloaks of Aden in Yemen.8 Al-Murädl
said in describing a falcon (shâhïn) : “You would think, when he alights on the swampy ground,
that he had scattered the pearls above a robe of Rayy (burd Räzl).” Another of the specialties of
Rayy consists of the munaiyar garments.9

This note on the resemblance of these garments to the Aden type is most interesting;

1 Al-Baihakï (Ibrahim ibn Muhammad), Kitäb al-
Mahäsin wa ’l-Masâwï, ed. P. Schwally (Giessen 1902),
p. 211.

2 Djähiz, “Al-Tabassur bi ’l-Tidjara,” ed. Hasan H.
‘Abd al-Wahhäb, Revue de V acad. arabe de Damas, XII
(1351 h. [1932 A.D.]), 345-

3 For yarmak see the note in Chapter VII, n. 45.
Kassî stuffs are more fully discussed in Chapter XVI, but
the reading here is probably incorrect.

4 Ibn al-Fakih, Compendium libri Kitäb al-Boldän,
ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1885), V, 253-54.

5 Istakhri, Viae regnorum . . . ., ed. M. J. de Goeje,

B.G.A. (Leyden, 1870), I, 2x0. Cf. Ibn Hawkal, Viae et

régna. . . . Descriptio ditionis moslemicae, ed. M. J. de

Goeje (Leyden, 1873), II, 270.

6 Hudüd al-Älam, trans. by V. Minorsky, Gibb Mem.
Ser. (London, 1937), n.s., XI, 132.

7 Makdisi (Mukaddasi), Descriptio imperii Mos-
lemici, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1876; 2d ed.; 1906), III, 391,
395-96.

8 These may have been made by the “ikat” process,
and this may be what the author means when he com-
pares the two types, though burüd are made of wool.
See N. P. Britton, A Study of Some Early Islamic Tex-
tiles (Boston, 1938).

9 Tha’àlibî, Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif, ed. P. de Jong (Ley-
den, 1876), p. in.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

107

perhaps one might infer that the original design went from Aden to Persia, and that this might
have taken place in the time of the Persian domination of South Arabia. There was a consid-
erable import of textiles of the Sasanian kind into Arabia as we know from a number of
sources.

After the conquest, Mustawfi 10 found that cotton and corn grew well in Rayy. Ghäzän
Khan brought back some people to it and tried to bring back its former prosperity. As a
cloth manufacturing center, however, it seems to have lost all its importance at the time of
its destruction.

All the geographers unite to praise the products of Isfahan, the sole dissentient voice
being that of Abu ’1-Käsim, whose aim was to satirize the inhabitants of that city.

Ibn Rusta (290 h. [903 a.d.]) knew the products of the districts to the southeast of
Isfahan very well, for he said:

In it (Ruwaidasht) are made the carpets (busut) which chiefs and nobles are not too proud to
use as furnishings (farsh), and which are not often found in the possession of the middle and lower
classes, their beauty, the excellence of their manufacture, and their durable qualities being renowned
throughout all countries. If they are used with the splendid Armenian type of carpeting (farsh),
they go very well with it, and the result is very satisfactory. Precious curtains (sutur) used to be
made there, which surpassed those of Mosul and Wasit in beauty and excellent lasting qualities.11

Djähiz 12 knew of their saffron and fine cloth (thawb) which came from Isfahan, though
he placed their robes (aksiya) in an inferior position to the robes of Misri wool, and those
from Fars and from Khuzistan.

Ibn al-Fakih 13 remarked that it had been said that there were more Jews, weavers, and
adulterers in Isfahan than elsewhere. Benjamin of Tudela 14 also spoke of the many Jews in
Isfahan, but the tradition that the Jews were planted there in the time of Nebuchadnezzar
seems unreliable.

Ibn al-Fakih further mentioned the Isfahan! ‘Attabi, which was in all likelihood an
imitation of the famous Baghdad stuff. He wrote:

.... the second Baghdad, I mean Isfahan and the excellent climate and sweet water with which
they have been endowed, and the skill in the various arts which has been given them. They have Merv
stuffs and ‘Attâbï and wonderful mulham stuffs (which had a warp of silk, but a woof of some
other material), and cloaks (huila) of ibrïsm silk, woven and unwoven (understand “with gold”),
and Safidi garments.15

These latter garments were also made in Sana. The common types of material made in
many provinces of Islam emphasize the cosmopolitan nature of the city’s industries.

10 Mustawfi Kazwini (Hamd-Allah Mustawfi Kaz-
wini), The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qulüb,
trans. by G. Le Strange, Gibb Mem. Ser. (Leyden-Lon-
don, 1919), XXIII, II, 59. Nuwairï, Nihâyat al- Arab
fi Funün al-Adab (Cairo, 1923-37), and Abu ’l-Fida’,
Takvnm al-Buldän, ed. T. Reinaud and M. de Slane
(Paris, 1840), merely repeat pre-Mongol sources.

11 Ibn Rusta, Kitäb al-ATäk al-Nafisa, ed. M. J. de
Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1892), III, 153.

12 Djähiz, op. cit., pp. 345 and 337.

13 Ibn al-Fakih, op. cit., p. 267.

14 The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. and
trans. by M. N. Adler (London, 1907), p. 58.

15 Ibn al-Fakih, op. cit., pp. 50 and 254.

ioS

R. B. SERJEANT

According to Istakhrï 16 Isfahan exported also: “From it ‘Attâbï, wash! figured stuffs,
and all kinds of silk cloth ( thiyäb ) and cotton were brought, and sent to Iraq, Pars, Khura-
san and the other provinces.” This account was expanded by Ibn Hawkal:

It is the emporium of Fars, Djibäl, Khurasan, and Khuzistan. . . . From it are brought the
‘Attâbï, washî, and other garments of ibrism silk and cotton with which Iraq is supplied, and Fars,
Djibäl, Khurasan, and Khuzistan. There is nothing like the ‘Attâbï of Isfahan in excellence, and
luster (or quality, djawhariya). Its saffron is exported to Iraq and other places. 17

The Hudüd 18 only gives “silk textiles of different kinds, as cloaks (huila), tabby (Attâbï,
coarse watered silk), and siklätün.”

Of Yahüdïya, the citadel of Isfahan, Makdisï said: “In it there are many great mer-
chants and skilled artisans as well as cloth which is taken to all regions.” 19 Again he re-
marked that “it has a cloth market (sük al-bazzâzïn) after the manufacture of Sidjistän,”
and that it is famous for its “elegant cloaks (huila) and earthenware (fakhkhàr).” These
cloaks are included in the list of luxurious stuffs mentioned in the Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif 20 by a
courtier of ‘Adud al-Dawla.

Idrïsï 21 informed us that “at Isfahan there are factories (métiers) where they make
rich silken stuffs such as ‘Attâbï, washî, and others, and cotton stuffs. Fine saffron is also
found. After Rayy there is no greater town than Isfahan (in Djibäl).”

Kazwïnï was unusually communicative about Isfahan:

It is proverbial for the skill of its artisans and these artisans have a skilled hand for the fine
crafts. You cannot see calligraphy (Wiutüt) like that of the people of Isfahan, nor any ornament
(tazwik) like theirs. This applies to their craftsmen in every art — they surpass other craftsmen to
such an extent, that their weavers will weave a veil (khimär) of cotton of a length of four dhirä‘, the
weight of which is four mithkäls.22

Of Nähr Zarin Rüdh 23 in Isfahan, he said: “Coarse thread is washed in this water, be-
coming soft and easy to the touch as silk.”

Abu ’l-Kasim’s satire 24 has preserved some notes on the costume of Isfahan:

There are spread out therein (i.e., in the houses) Ruwaidasht carpets (zulliya), Iraq velvets
(kutuf Sawâdïya) , Kurdish cloth (musüh 2S), and Djâbrawânï cushions (makhädd 26). Both in sum-

16 Istakhrï, op. cit., p. 199.

17 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 261.

18 Hudüd al-Âlam, p. 131.

19 Makdisï, op. cit., pp. 34, 388, 39S-96- 425-
20 Tha'âlibî, op. cit., p. 132.

21 Idrïsï, Géographie, trans. by P. A. Jaubert (Paris
1836-40), II, 168.

22 Kazwïnï, el-Cazwini’s Kosmographie, ed. F. Wü-
stenfeld (Göttingen, 1846-48), II, 196 and 198.

23 G. Le Strange calls this locality Zarïnrùdh, and
Ruwaidasht Rüdasht.

24 Abu ’l-Mutahhar al-Azdï, Hikäyat Abi ’l-Käsitn, ed.
A. Mez (Heidelberg, 1902), p. 37.

25 Tabarï, Annales, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leyden 1879-
1901), II, 785, noted that in the year 68 h. (687-88
A.D.), Damascus was decorated with musüh which must
have been some kind of hanging. Again {ibid., II, 1170)
he mentioned trousers of musüh, in the year 85 h. (704

A.D.).

26 C. Barbier de Meynard, Dictionnaire géographi-
que, historique, et littéraire de la Perse (Paris, 1861),
p. 147. Djâbrawân. “Ville d’ Azerbaijan voisine de
Tebriz.”

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

109

mer and winter you sit upon carpets (zulliya) and coverlets (‘aba’). On your bodies you wear gar-
ments of rough Mervian weave homespun. . . . Your shirts are of a like nature, and also your tur-
bans. . . . When you wish to appear fine you put on shawls, and your children put on striped cloaks
(abräd), and turbans of cotton of dark-blue (kuhli) color, in the fringes of which hang threads of
green and red color.

While Isfahan is under our notice it might be interesting to compare the account of its
industries by a certain Raphael de Mans, a European author of the early seventeenth cen-
tury. This of course, properly speaking, falls outside the scope of our work:

Un autre trafic est celui des toiles d’or, et d’argent faictes à Hispan, zerbaft, faictes par figures
de soye, comme à haute lice, en quoy l’on travaille icy en Hispan à merveille avec peu d’instruments;
quatre picquets emmanchées l’un dans l’autre suffisent, car icy tous les ouvriers travaillent avec peu
de frais. Toutes ces estoffes avoient cy devant un grand cours et se vendoient bien aux Indes. A
présent qu’il y a deffense d’orner de ces estoffes les pelenquis ordinairement aux Indes, ce trafic
est fort anéanti. Tel Charbafe (sha'rbâf), ouvrier, qui avoit vingt et trente destega (dastgâh),
(ouvroüers) n’en peut garder deux ou trois, et avec cela ils n’ont pas de l’eau à boire. La plus part
de ces ouvriers se sont mis à tisser de la toile joula (cülâ or cülwârï), ou des taffetas.

L’on trafique encore de tapis de Turquie, qui se fait icy fort beaux et qui se transportent hors
de le pais. Mais ceci ne donne pas un grand denier.27

Other passages describe how golden thread was made there:

Les ouvriers principaux icy sont les Charbafes (sha'rbâf), ouvriers en toile d’ or, et d’argent
et de soye à haute lice, en quoy ils surpassent l’Occident pour de peu faire quelque chose. Il est vray
que les zerbafes, ou estoffes de l’or de Venise, sont ici plus chères et plus estimées à cause qu’ils
sont plus chargées d’or et de l’argent, celles d’ici estant plus à la légère. Mesme dans Yezde, l’on
tire si délié le fil de talon que l’on le met en estoffe comme or, que durant six mois, l’on auroit de
la peine à le discerner d’avec le vrai filet d’or.

Zerkesh (zarkash) sont ceux qui tirent l’or et l’argent en filets par filières si délicats que à
peine l’on le voit.

Makkekou (mâkü-küb) sont ceux qui, sur des enclumes très polies et marteaux de mesme,
aplatissent cet argent et cet or traicts et les femmes des ouvriers les roulent sur la soye pour les
employer.

Ces trois sortes d’ouvriers n’en doivent rien aux nostres pour l’habileté, vu le peu d’instru-
ments dont ils se servent.28

OTHER TEXTILE CITIES IN PJIBÄL

Though Hamadan is so large and famous a town, Makdisï 29 is the only person who
mentioned textiles there: “From Hamadan and its districts come cloth (bazz), fox and sable

27 R. de Mans, Estât de la Perse en 1660, ed. C. who have left accounts of manufactures in Isfahan such

Schefer (Paris, 1890), p. 186. as Tavernier and others.

28 Ibid., p. 195. There are of course many travelers 29 Makdisï, op. cit., pp. 395-96.

I IO

R. B. SERJEANT

furs .... the most delightful and costly tailasäns, as well as beautiful robes (aksiya).” Ac-
cording to Benjamin of Tudela there were many Jews there.30

The Kazvin robes are mentioned by Ibn al-Fakih,31 and Istakhrl 32 also added: “Goat
hair robes (mar‘izza) and stockings are made there as is well known.” Tha(älibl 33 included
these stockings (djawärib) in the list of precious articles of Buwaihid times.

Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi 34 mentioned the garments of Dastuwä, and Yäküt 35 added that
Dastuwâ’ï robes are ascribed to it. Idrïsï reported that these stuffs were manufactured at
Antioch and stuff very like them in Damascus.36

Kum. MakdisI 37 said: “From Kum come cloth (bazz) and a great deal of saffron.”
Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi also knew of its saffron.

Ardistan (modern Arösön). Yäküt38 said: “There are brought thence the beautiful
garments which are exported everywhere.”

Shahrazür. Abu ’1-Fidä’ 39 from earlier sources noted that it had an active commerce in
cotton.

In the Ïl-Khânid period, Mustawafï Kazwînï 40 gave a list of manufacturing cities.
Sultânïya,41 the Mongol capital with its tiräz, has been mentioned previously. The other cities
are: Varâmïn, which grew up after the destruction of Rayy, cotton; Farähän, Asadäbäd,
Nehavand, Rüdbär, cotton; Säva, Firüzän, Äva, cotton. In the mountainous regions between
Iraq (A'djamï) and Gilän, Dailamän and Ashkür also produce cotton.

30 The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, p. 57.

31 Ibn al-Fakîh, op. cit., p. 50.

32 Istakhrl. op. cit., p. 201, in one MS only. Cf.
Yäküt, Miïdjam al-Buldän, Geographisches Wörterbuch,
ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866-73), II, 573.

33 Tha'älibl, op. cit., p. 132.

34 Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al-‘Ikd al-Fand (Cairo, 1331 h.
[1913 a.d.] ) , IV, 267.

35 Yäküt, op. cit., II, 574.

36 R. Dozy. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes (2d
ed.; Paris, 1927), I, 441, reading Dastuwâ’ï for Dastri.
Nevertheless, perhaps a better emendation would be

Tustarï. See Chap. XIV, n. 25. al-Suyütï, Lubb al-
Albâb, ed. P. J. Veth, Specimen e litteris orientalibus . . . .
(Leyden, 1840-51), p. 105, said, however, that Dastuwä
is a place near Ahwäz which exports cloth.

37 Makdisï, op. cit., p. 396.

38 Yäküt, op. cit., I, 198.

39 Géographie d’Aboulféda, trans. by M. Reinaud
(Paris, 1847-83), II, 162.

40Mustawfï Kazwïnï, op cit., pp. 58, 61, 65-66, 71,
73, 75-76.

41 See Chap. II, n. 50.

CHAPTER IX

KHURASAN

JVIuCH EARLY INFORMATION ON THE TEXTILE EXPORTS OF THIS AREA IS AVAILABLE (Map
2 ) . The tiräz system was established there at an early date, for the A ghäni 1 mentions
a certain al-Mu‘allä ibn Tarif, a slave given to al-Mahdi by Mansur and liberated by
his new master: “He was made governor of the tiräz factories and post offices (band) in
Khurasan” (ca. 150 h. [767 a.d.]). He was later made governor of Ahwäz. The Djiräb
al-Dawla cited by Ibn Khaldûn 2 notes that a thousand ingots of silver, and 27,000 garments
(thawb) were sent with the tribute from Khurasan to Baghdad. Ibn Khurdädbih3 reported
that 1,187 pieces of coarse Kundadji muslin (karäbis kundadjïya) and striped cloaks
(burüd) came from Khurasan as part of the tribute. In the early third century, the Aghäni 4
mentions Khuräsänl cloaks (kabä’) and chests of Khuräsänl cloth presented to a singer by
the governor of that province.

Istakhri,5 followed by Ibn Hawkal,6 said: “In Khurasan are the best stuffs of cotton
and ibrism silk which come from Nishapur and Merv, and the finest cloth (bazz) from
Merv.” It is worth noting that Istakhri mentioned these two tiräz cities together. The migra-
tion of workmen from the tiräz of Bokhara to Khurasan about the end of the third or early
fourth century was remarked by Narshakhi, who, however, added that they did not succeed
well there.

With regard to Merv, we have more references than to almost any other city. A passage
from Ibn Hawkal may help to show its importance to the Abbasids: “From Merv emerged
the dynasty of the Banü ‘Abbäs, and it was in the house (där) of the family of Abü Nadjm
al-Mu‘aiti that the first black (the color of the Abbasids) ever dyed was dyed, and the
Musawwida (their followers) arrayed themselves in it.” 7 Now, we know from discoveries of
actual examples of Mervian cloth, the type of material made there, and furthermore, that a
tiräz factory existed though there are no literary allusions to it. It is very reasonable to sup-
pose that the Abbasids established a tiräz in the city which must have supplied them with
much equipment for their attack on Umayyad power, and it was almost certainly one of the

1 Abu ’1-Faradj al-Isfahäni, Kitäb, al-Aghäni (Cairo,
1927-36), VI, 240.

2 Ibn Khaldûn, Les Prolégomènes, trans. by M. de
Slane (Paris, 1863-68), I, 364, ed. by M. Quatremère
(Paris, 1858), pp. 322-23. For variant readings, see
Chap. I, n. 9.

3 Ibn Khurdädbih, Kitäb al-Masàlik wa ’l-Mamâlik,

ed. M. J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabi-

corum (— B.G.A .) (Leyden, 1889), VI, text p. 38, trans.

p. 28. Kundadji is probably the same work as Kundaki

(coarse garments) made at Arradjän. See Indices, Glos-
sarium et Addenda . . . , ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Ley-

den, 1879), IV. The reading “burüd” is doubtful and
only appears in Makdisi (MukaddasI), Descriptio im-
perii Moslemici, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1876; 2d ed., 1906),
III, 340. The text has “murür” or “kudür.”

4 Abu ’1-Faradj al-Isfahäni, op. cit., V, 294.

5 Istakhri, Viae regnorum . . . ., ed. M. J. de Goeje,
B.G.A. (Leyden, 1870), I, 282.

6 Ibn Hawkal, Viae et régna .... Descriptio ditionis
moslemicae, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leyden, 1873), II, 330.

1 Ibid., p. 316, Cf. Géographie d’Aboulféda, texte
arabe, ed. M. Reinaud and M. de Slane (Paris, 1840),
p. 446, trans. (Paris, 1847-83), II, 186.

Map 2 — Khurasan and Kuhistan

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

II3

tiräz cities under the control of Ibn Tarif. Yäküt 8 stated that Ma’mün, who for a time ac-
tually resided in Merv, and, like Ibn Tarif, had control of the tiräz of Khurasan, was very
fond of the soft cotton (kutn) of Merv.

The Merv stuffs resembled those of the Tinnis-Damietta group and bore silk inscrip-
tions. An example will be found in the Répertoire chronologique ,9 dated 293 h. (906 a.d.),
the reign of al-Muktafi.

Djähiz 10 knew it as exporting Mervian carpets (tinfisa) and Mervian cloth, and
Ya‘kübïn said: “In it are the excellent garments (thiyäb) numbered among the Khurasan
garments.” Ibn al-Fakih 12 added that “the people of Merv have Mervian garments and
outstanding mulham cloth (with a double warp) which are the finest of their kind.” It is
probably to those mulham stuffs that the Kitäb al-Muwashshä 13 refers when it speaks of
mulham of khazz silk and Khurasan as being worn by elegant ladies and gentlemen in Bagh-
dad.

Istakhri 14 gave the following curious notes on the industry:

It produces ibrism silk and much kazz silk. I have heard that the origin of ibrism in Djurdjän
and Tabaristän was by transference in olden times from Merv. Perhaps the silkworm was brought
from it to Tabaristän. From it is brought the cotton which is called after it, soft cotton, and the
garments despatched to all regions.

This compares with Ibn Hawkal’s account:

There is brought from Merv, ibrism silk, and much kazz silk. It is said that the origin of kazz
silk in Djurdjän and Tabaristän in former times was from Merv. From it is brought the cotton
which is named after it in other countries. It is of the utmost softness. There are brought from it
the garments despatched to all countries.15

By “former times” the author is probably referring to some time in the Sasanian era, as
silk stuffs were sent from Tabaristän to Iraq before the Muslim conquest.16 Even Africa and
Spain imported or imitated those Mervian stuffs, for “une belle housse d’étoffe mervienne”
is mentioned in Africa in the latter half of the ninth century in Bakri’s account of the prov-
ince’s history under Idrisid rule.17

Brief notes occur in the Huditd: “Merv produces good cotton textiles of raw silk

8 Yâküt, Miïdjam al-Buldän, Geographisches Wör-
terbuch, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866-73), IV, 508.

9 Répertoire chronologique d’ épigraphie arabe, ed. É.
Combe, J. Sauvaget, and G. Wiet (Cairo, 1931), III, 39-
Cf. G. Wiet, L’ Exposition persane de içji (Cairo, 1933).

10 Djähiz. “Al-Tabassur bi ’1-Tidjära,” ed. Hasan H.
‘Abd al-Wahhäb, Revue de V acad. arabe de Damas, XII
(i3Si h. [1932 a.d.]), 343-

11 Ya'kübi, Kitäb al-Boldän, B.G.A., ed. M. J. de
Goeje (Leyden, 1892), VII, 279.

12 Ibn al-Fakïh, Compendium libri Kitäb al-Boldän,
ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1885), V, 254.

13 Al-Washshä’, Kitäb al-Muwashshä, ed. R. E.
Brünnow (Leyden, 1886), pp. 124 and 126.

14 Istakhri, op. cit., p. 263.

15 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 316.

16 See Chap. VII.

17A1-Bakri, Description de V Afrique septentrionale,
trans. by M. de Slane (Alger, 1913), p. 187.

R. B. SERJEANT

1 14

(kazln) and of mulham silk.” 18 Makdisï 19 added: “From Merv come mulham stuffs, and head
veils (makänk) of kazz silk, ibrism silk, and cotton.” The Spanish Arab Ibn ‘Abd Rab-
bihi 20 knew that Merv was famous for its garments, mentioning it among other tiräz cities,
and Tha'älibl 21 reported that al-Mustakfl left the number of 63,000 Khurasan Merv and
Shu'aibl22 garments, and 13,000 Merv turbans (‘imäma). Miskawaihi 23 called these Merv
turbans “Shähidjäm” ( ca . 372 h. [982 a.d.] ), and they were one of the most famous products
of the city.

The loose sense in which the term Mervi was applied was commented upon by Tha£ alibi
(350-429 h. [961-1073 a.d.]):

The Arabs used to call every close woven garment brought from Khurasan “Marawi” and
every fine garment exported from it “Shähidjäm,” because Merv in their eyes was the chief city of
Khurasan and was called Marv Shähidjän. The name Shähidjäm has persisted for the fine robes
to this day. The particular article for which Merv is noted is the mulham cloth. One day Abu
’l-Fath al-Bustl al-Kätib said to me: “Do you know a town, the first letter of which is a mim,
whence four things are brought by way of gifts, the name of each beginning with a mïm?” I re-
plied, “If you ask me to say offhand, I do not know, but I could think it over, and perhaps I might
discover it.” He answered: “It is Merv, whence come mulham, pastry (mulabban), cake (murri),
and brooms (makänis).” 24

Idris! said: “From this country is derived much silk and ‘bourre de soie’ as well as
cotton of a superior quality under the name of Merv cotton, which is extremely soft. It is
with this cotton that they make the various stuffs designed for export.” 25 Yäküt was more
precise and mentioned Shäwashkän, a village of Merv: “To it is ascribed extremely good
ibrism silk which I have actually seen.”26

In the Tähirid period Merv ceased to be the capital, which was transferred to Nishapur,
but this did not affect its fame. In the Mongol invasion it was completely destroyed and all
the inhabitants but four hundred artisans murdered. The citj' never recovered, and though
Abu ’1-Fidä’ mentioned large exports of ibrism silk and cotton this must refer to the Abbasid
period.27

18 Hndüd al-Älam, trans. by V. Minorsky, Gibb Mem.
Ser. (London, 1937), n.s., XI, 105.

19 Makdisï, op. cit., p. 324.

20 Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al-lkd al-Farïd (Cairo, 1331 H.
[1913 a.d.]), IV, 267-68.

21 Tha'âlibî, Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif, ed. P. de Jong (Ley-
den, 1867), p. 72. Cf. Yatïmat al-Dahr (Damascus, 1866-
67), II, 62, mentioning “a white Merv turban.” The word
translated as “dose woven” might perhaps better be
rendered by “coarse” in antithesis to the fine stuffs.

22 See R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes,
(2d ed.; Paris, 1927), for this as yet uncertain name.

23 Miskawaihi, The Eclipse of the ‘Abbasid Caliphate,
ed. and trans. by H. F. Amedroz and D. S. Margoliouth

(Oxford, 1920-21), text, III, 44, trans., VI, 41.

24 Tha'âlibî, op. cit., pp. 119-20.

25 Idrïsï, Géographie, trans. by P. A. Jaubert (Paris,
1836-40), I, 467.

26 Yakut, op. cit., Ill, 245.

27 Géographie d’ Aboulfeda, text, p. 446, trans.,
II, 186. Other texts where Mervian stuffs are
mentioned are Tanùkhï, Nishwär al-Muhädara, Table
Talk of a Mesopotamian Judge, ed. and trans. by D. S.
Margoliouth, Or. Trans. Fund, text, p. 218, trans., p.
229; Mutanabbï, Diwan (Beirut, 1882), p. 17, who calls
it “ape’s dress,” and The Arabian Nights, trans. by E. W.
Lane (New York, 1927), p. 320. As an epithet, the ad-
jective “soft” is usually applied to it. Al-Mutarrizi (Näsir

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

II5

Nishapur, too, was early famed for its textile manufactures. The name of the city is
derived from the Sasanian Shapur, either the first or second monarch of that name. Possibly
after the fashion of Persian rulers, prisoners of war and deportees were settled there. Its
prosperity, however, dates from the time when Abdallah ibn Tahir made it his capital in the
third (ninth) century. It is curious that so many cities founded by the Sasanian monarchs
should have possessed a tiräz.

Ibn al-Fakih (290 h. [903 a.d.]) stated: “The people of Nishapur have the mulham
and Tähirid cloths, and also täkhtandj and räkhtandj which no other people have.” 28 This
Tahiri cloth figures in no other geographer, though takhtandj and räkhtandj are not uncom-
mon. The name would seem to refer to the cloth which was made for the Tähirid governors
in Nishapur, possibly with a tiräz border, the style of which may have persisted after they
lost their power. The ‘Arib29 stated that the Caliph al-Muktadir used to ride in a cloak
(kabä’) of this täkhtandj (twisted material, twisted silk?); al-Hiläl al-Säbi’ talked of trou-
sers (saräwilät) of Dabïkï, turbans (‘imäma), shirts (durrä‘a), and linings of täkhtandj.30

Istakhri 31 was very brief: “Various kinds of cotton and ibrism silk are made there which
are taken to all the countries of Islam and all the heathen countries on account of their
abundance and excellence.” Ibn Hawkal was more prolix:

There are many khans and depots (funduk) where merchants stay with merchandise for the
purpose of doing business there. . . . Those who are not wealthy have a market in another place and
depots (funduk) where those skilled in their crafts stay in constructed booths and among working
people. The factories (hänüt) filled with craftsmen such as the makers of kalansuwa caps have in
the middle of their market a depot (funduk) in which are many booths. The shoemakers (asäkifa),
cobblers (kharräz), ropemakers (habbäl), .... are after this style. As for the funduk of the cloth-
makers (bazzäz) and their storehouses (khänbärät) therein, and trade, most countries have a part
in that and are not to be found missing. . . . From it are brought various kinds of cloth (bazz) and
splendid garments of cotton and kazz silk taken to Islamic and some heathen countries on account
of their abundance, excellence, and the fondness of kings and nobles for wearing them, because the
like of them does not come from any land and could not be made in any other district.32

The Hudüd 33 summarily says: “It produces various textiles (djäma), silk, and cotton.”

Makdisi 34 was the first author to notice its tiräz factory: “There is no equal to the

ibn ‘Abd al-Saiyid al-Mutarrizi) in al-Mughrib fi Tartlb
al-Mu’rib (Haidarabad, 1328 h.), who was bom in 538 h.
(1143-44 a.d.) said (II, 12) : “The tiräz is the ornamented
border (‘alam) of the cloth (thawb), and a ‘thawb tiräzi’
is named after the tiräz. It is also the name of a place in
Merv, and a quarter (mahälla) is also called Tiräz.” Again
he said {op. cit., II, 183) : “The two Mervs are Marw
al-Rüdh and Marw al-Shähidjän, both in Khurasan, and
according to Khwähar-zäda, Mervian cloth (thiyäb) ....
is named after a district (balad) in Iraq, on the bank of
the Euphrates.” It is difficult to assess the reliability of
these statements. (Ref. from M. Minovi.)

28 Ibn al-Fakih, op. cit., p. 254. It is, however, just
possible that this Tahir! cloth is named after Tähiriya in
Khoresm where it may have originated, though Tähiriya
is not specifically mentioned as a textile center.

29 ‘Arib, Tabari continuatus, ed. M. J. de Goeje
(Leyden, 1897), p. 167.

30 Al-Hiläl al-Säbi’, Kitäb al-Wuzarä’, ed. H. F. Ame-
droz (Leyden, 1904), pp. 175-76.

31 Istakhri. op. cit., p. 255.

32 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 31 1.

33 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 102.

34 Makdisi, op. cit., pp. 3 25 and 323.

X 1 6

R. B. SERJEANT

brocade (dlwädj), tiräz, clay (tin), Shähidjäni (stuff), needles, knives, and white currants
(ribas) of Nishapur.” Of its products he said:

There are brought from Nishapur white haffi 35 garments, and the baibäf,36 the haffi Shähidjäni
turbans (‘imäma), räkhtandj and täkhtandj, veils called “between garments” and the mulham stuff
(with a double warp) with kazz silk, the cloth of one color (musmat), ‘Attäbi, Sa'idi,37 zarä’ifi,38
mushti,39 striped cloaks (huila), and garments of goat hair (thiyäb al-sha‘r) as well as expensive
thread (ghazl). . . . From the districts of Nishapur come many coarse cloths.

The Shähidjäni stuffs may have been imitated from those of Merv.

The Latä’if al-Ma‘ärij 40 gives an account which varies considerably from that of
Makdisi, though the two texts are similar enough for corruptions to be suspected:

Among the specialties of Nishapur are the haffi garments, and Asiri kerchiefs (mandil),
täkhtandj and räkhtandj, and cloth of one color (musmat). As regards striped cloaks (huila),
‘Attäbi, and siklätün stuffs, Baghdad and Nishapur share in them. Säbiri is the fine soft kind of any
garment but the origin of it is the attribution to Nishapur which is arabicized to Säbiri.

Näsir-i-Khusraw compared its thread with that of Misr:

From a trustworthy cloth merchant I have heard that they buy one dirham-weight of thread
(rismän) for three Maghribi dinars, i.e. three and a half Nishäpüri dinars. So I asked in Nishapur
at how much they bought the best thread and they said that the best variety sold at one dirham for
five dirham weights.41

IdrisI 42 mentioned, en passant, the tiräz factories of the city.

These cloths were popular among the fashionable in Baghdad for the Kitäb al-
Muwashshä 43 talks of tailasäns of Nishäpüri mulham stuff among the clothes of a gentle-
man, while ladies wore Nishapur veils (makäni‘).

During the Mongol conquest, the hordes from Central Asia, completely sacked the city,
and it never recovered completely, and as we can see from Ibn Batüta44 (756 h. [1355
a.d.] ) the very type of manufacture changed: “At Nishapur are made silken garments (harir)
of nakhkh and velvet (kamkhä) . . . which are taken to India.” These stuffs were also made
in Baghdad and Tabriz.45

35 A kind of cloth made with the instrument known
as haff. See Chap. V, n. 55.

36 M. J. de Goeje in “Indices,” Glossarium et Addenda
. . . . B.G.A. (Leyden, 1879), IV, suggests that this kind
of garment is derived from the Persian pai-bäf, a weaver.

37 This stuff was made in the Yemen at Sana, ac-
cording to al-Bakrl. See de Goeje, op. cit. Sa‘idi is a
material as yet unidentified.

38 Another unidentified stuff.

39 Stuff made with a comb. See Chap. V, n. 55.

40 Tha‘àlibï. op. cit., p. 116. Cf. Thimâr al-Kulüb
(Cairo, 1326 h. [1908 a.d.]), p. 429.

41 Näsir-i Khusraw, Sajar-mma, ed. and trans. by
C. Schefer, Relation du Voyage de Nassiri Khosrau,
Publications de l’école des langues orientales vivantes
(Paris, 1881), II, I, text p. 52.

42 Idrïsî, Idrisii Palaestina et Syria, ed. J. Gilde-
meister (Bonn, 1885), p. 14.

43 Al-Washshâ’, op. cit., pp. 124 and 126.

44 Ibn Battüta, Voyages d’Ibn Batoutah, ed. and
trans. by C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti (Paris,
i8S3-59). HI, 81.

45 Ibid., II, 3 il.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

117

Nuwairi 46 (d. 732 h. [1332 a.d.]) noted the fine Nishapur garments as being the
specialty of the town, but he was probably following pre-Mongol sources.47

OTHER TEXTILE CENTERS

In the Nishapur quarter of the province lay a group of industrial towns. One manu-
script of Istakhrl,48 remarking that Tib trouser cords are unsurpassed, adds: “. . .except for what
has been introduced in Tüs, and they make in it a kind finer than those of Tib.” The Hudüd
al-Älam 49 says that: “It produces trouser cords (shalvär-band) and stockings.” MakdisI50
added: “From Tüs come beautiful trouser cords (tikka) and fine striped cloaks (abräd).”

“From Ustuwä,” said MakdisI,51 “much cloth is brought.” East again of this is Nisä,
of which he remarked: “From Nisä and Ablward are brought kazz silk and garments of
it ... . and zanbaft (garments of womens’ weaving ? 52), and from Nisä, banbüzï 53 garments
and fox furs.” The Mongol leader Tâdjin Nuwïn demanded 10,000 dhirä‘ of stuff (khäm)
from the city at the time of the conquest, so it must have had considerable manufactures.54
On the borders of the desert between Khoresm (Khwärizm) and Nishapur was Shahrastän,
three days away from Nisä. Yäküt 55 said: “There are made in it the long turbans (‘imäma)
of high price. I can find nothing to approve of in them.” Kazwînï56 said: “From it are ex-
ported the long turbans of high price and its people are skilled in manufacturing them.”

Of Sarakhs, Yäküt 57 noted: “Its inhabitants have a skilful hand for the manufacture of
veils (makänk), and turbans embroidered in colors and gold (‘asä’ib manküsha wa-mudhah-
haba).” Kazwînï58 repeated this: “Its inhabitants have a skilled hand for the manufacture
of turbans and veils embroidered with gold (manküsha) which are taken thence to other
countries and named after it.”

From Dandankän, Merv probably drew cotton for its manufactures, but only Abu ’1-
Fidä’59 has deigned to notice its products, following an earlier authority: “This district
is one of the most plentiful countries for silk (harlr). Its cotton is proverbial for excellence.
These two products are exported.”

Herat was famed for its materials in the early Umayyad period, and a Herat loose shirt

46 Nuwairi, Nihäyat al-Arab ji Funün al-Adab (Cairo,

1927-37), I, 363.

47 Ishäk b. al-Husain, Kitäb Âkâm al-Nardjän, ed.
A. Codazzi, Rend. d. r. accad. naz. dei Lincei, VI (1929),
V ( ca . 340 h. [950 a.d.]), mentions garments of silk
(harir) and cotton.

48 Istakhrl, op. cit., p. 94.

49 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 103.

50 MakdisI, op. cit., p. 325.

51 Ibid., p. 319.

52 Ibid., p. 324. Perhaps “zarbaft” should be read here.

53 In Indices, Glossarium et Addenda, de Goeje sug-

gests that this word is derived from the Persian panba,
“cotton.”

54 Muhammad al-Nassawï, Histoire du Sultan Djelal
ed-Din Mankobirti, ed. by 0. Houdas (Paris, 1891), III,
IX, 58. Khäm probably means raw silk here.

55 Yäküt, op. cit., Ill, 343. See also Map. 4.

56 Kazwînï, el-Cazwini's Kosmographie, ed. F. Wü-
stenfeld (Göttingen, 1846-48), II, 266.

57 Yäküt, op. cit., Ill, 72.

58 Kazwînï, op. cit., II, 261.

59 Géographie d’ Aboulféda, text, p. 459, trans., II,
197.

ii8

R. B. SERJEANT

without sleeves (karkar Harawl 60) is mentioned in the Aghäni ,61 and precious Herat robes
are noted at Mecca in the time of ‘Umar ibn Abï Rabl£a. They were probably yellow for
Tabari 62 mentioned in the annals for the year 77 h. (696 a.d.) that Kutaiba wore a yellow
Herat cloak (kaba’ Harawi asfar). As early as the reign of £Abd al-Malik, Mudjir al-Din 63
said that the servants in the Dome of the Rock wore striped stuffs of Merv and Herat called
£asb, thus they must have been exported even then. Tabari 64 heard that Mansür once wore a
patched Herat djubba, a fact in keeping with his character.

MakdisI 6S gave as its products: ££. ...much cloth (bazz), cheap brocade, and taffeta
(Khuldl).” Stuffs of this name were sent by one of the Marinid sultans to the Mameluke
al-Malik al-Näsir, but whether they came from Herat or were made in Spain, it is impossible
to say.66 Tha£àlibî 67 noted that “from Herat muslins (kirbäs), twisted stuffs (mubram),
and brocades are exported.”

Mustawfi 68 reported that at the time of the kings of Ghür, there were 12,000 shops in
Herat, which would argue great prosperity.

In the region east of Herat known as Ghardj. al-Shar (later called Ghardjistän), Mak-
disï 69 remarked the special products “felts (lubüd), beautiful carpets (busut), and saddle
trappings with all that implies (hakä’ib, saddle-cushions, etc).”

Balkh does not seem to have been particularly famous for its textiles. According to
MakdisI: “Belts (wikäya) after the manufacture of Djurdjän, and striped cloaks” 70 were
made. The Fadä’il al-Balkh 71 only mentions the ibrlshm silk of Fergana as being produced
there (610 h. [1214 a.d.] ). The sequence of its history was broken by the Mongol conquest,
and Ibn Batuta found it a complete ruin.

Of Djuzdjänän, the western quarter of the Balkh district of Khurasan, the Hudüd
al-Älam 72 says : “It produces felts, saddle bags (haklba), saddle girths (tang-i-asp), zllü,
and palas” (the last a woolen garment worn by the poor). It includes the city of Tälikän,
which is well documented. Djähiz 73 found that “the best felts are the Chinese (Sin!)

60 See the “Glossary” to Tabari, Annales, ed. M. J.
de Goeje (Leyden, 1879-1901), under karkar.

61 Abu ’1-Faradj al-Isfahänl, op. cit., I, 259 ff. and
the twenty-first volume of the Kitäb al- Aghäni . . . ., ed.
R. E. Brünnow (Leyden, 1888), p. 152.

62 Tabari, op. cit., II, II, 963.

63 H. Sauvaire, Histoire de Jérusalem et d’Hebron
. . . . par Moudjîr ed-dyn (Paris, 1876), pp. 52-53. In
southwest Arabia ‘asb was an ikated cloth.

64 Tabari, op. cit., Ill, I, 415. See Chap. II, Pt. I.
Tabari, op. cit., Ill, I, 569, said that when al-Hadl’s
mother, Khaizurän. died, she left 18,000 of the garments
called karkar.

65 MakdisI, op. cit., p. 324.

66 Makkarî, Analectes sur l’histoire et la littérature
des arabes en Espagne, ed. R. Dozy and others (Leyden,
1855-61), II, 71 1. The plural Khalâdî is given here

which might perhaps be derived from the Khuld Palace
or the near-by districts of Baghdad.

67 Tha‘âlibï, Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif, p. 119, and Thimär
al-Kulüb, p. 431.

68 Hamd-Alläh Mustawfi Kazwïnï, The Geographical
Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulüb, trans. by G. Le Strange,
Gibb Mem. Ser. (Leyden-London, 1919), XXIII, II,
150.

69 MakdisI, op. cit., p. 324.

70 Op. cit.

71 C. Schefer, Chrestomathie persane (Paris, 1883-85),
I, 96. See W. Barthold, Turkistdn at the Time of the
Mongolian Invasion, Gibb Mem. Ser. (London, 1927),
n.s., V, 36, for remarks on this work.

72 Hudüd al-‘Âlam, p. 106.

73 Djähiz. op. cit., p. 338.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

119

variety, then the red Maghrib! kind, then the white Tälikän! variety, then the Armenian,
then those of Khurasan.” Ya‘kübï 74 said: “In it are made the Tälikän felts.” Mas‘üdï 75
(219 h. [834 a.d.] ) mentioned them too. Idris! 76 said: “They make felts of cloth renowned
everywhere. There are none so solid and compact as those.”

KUHISTAN

Kuhistan was one of the dependencies of Khurasan, from quite early times noted for a
cloth which went by the name of Kühï. In the Aghânï there is a pleasant little story of the
poet ‘Umar ibn Ab! Rab!‘a (d. 101 h. [719 a.d.]). The poet was in love with a lady but
her people disapproved of the most eloquent and seductive versifier of the time, and they
married her to another man. ‘Umar, carried away by his passion for the lady, wrote a verse
upon a piece of Kühï cloth and .... ornamented it and sent it to her — a fashion among
lovers.77 Ibn Suraih 78 spoke of girls in Kühï and wash! figured stuff who looked like dinars
of Heraclius — probably because of their golden color, or because of the gold embroideries.

Tabari 79 mentioned a shirt (kamis) of Kühï at the court of al-Mansür (144 h.
[761 a.d.]) in Baghdad. In the year 160 h. (776-77 a.d.) 80 he told how the emirs and
dihkäns brought the governor of Balkh presents, the governor of Herat and Khurasan bring-
ing, besides gold and silver plates, “Mervian brocade, and Kühï and Herati brocade (al-
dïbâdj. al-Marawï wa ’l-Kühï wa ’l-Haraw!).” Again a poem in the Annalsu for the year
198 h. (813-14 a.d.) says: “More splendid and cleaner than new Kühï.” And again, Tha-
‘älibi 82 wrote that al-‘Abbäs ibn al-Hasan, the vizier of al-Muktaf! (289-95 h. [ 902—7
a.d.]) used to say: “The likeness of a wise man is like the way of a tailor (khaiyät) who one
day cuts out brocade (buzyün) worth a thousand, and the next, Kühï, worth ten.” The Kitäh
al-Muwashshä&i mentions soft Kühï linings (mubattanät).

Istakhrî 84 stated that “muslins (kirbäs), cloth (musüh), and carpet strips (nikhäkh),
are taken to various regions, but there are no expensive materials there.” Makdisï 85 knew
that “from Kuhistan come the garments resembling the white Nishapur variety and carpets
(busut) and prayer carpets (musallayät).” Speaking of Sind, he said: “In all the province,
carpets (busut) and the like, of the kind made in Kuhistan and Khurasan are manufactured
. . . . From it are brought beautiful garments.”86

74Ya‘kübï, op. cit., p. 287.

75 Mas‘üdï, Murüdj al-Dhahab, Les Prairies d’or
(Paris, 1861-77), VII, 117.

76 Idrïsï, op. cit., I, 468.

77 Abu ’1-Faradj. al-Isfahânï, op. cit., I, 236. The
word omitted here is uncertain. It seems probable that
the verses (not given here) were embroidered on the
stuff.

78 Ibid., I, 310 and 363. The latter mentioned a shirt
(kamis) of this material.

79 Tabari, op. cit., Ill, I, 188.

80 Ibid., II, III, 1635-36.

»I Ibid., Ill, II, 949.

82 Tha'âlibî, Syntagma dictorum brévium et acu-
torum, ed. J. P. Valeton (Leyden, 1844), p. 34.

83 Al-Washshâ’, op. cit., p. 124.

84 Istakhrî, op. cit., p. 275.

85 Makdisï, op. cit., p. 324.

86 Ibid., 481. Cf. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al-‘Ikd al-Farid
(Cairo, 1331 h. [1913 a.d.]), IV, 268. Djâhiz. Kitäb al-

120

R. B. SERJEANT

Kâyin, the capital of the province, is scantily documented. Makdisi 87 merely remarked
that much cloth (bazz) is brought from it. Yäküt 88 said: “Much cloth (bazz) is brought to
it and it is the trading center of Khurasan, and the treasury (khizäna — or store) of Kerman.”
Mustawfi 89 remarked on its production of saffron.

Tün, according to Makdisi,90 had many weavers (häka) and workers in wool (sunnä‘ al-
süf).” Näsir-i-Khusraw 91 said: “In this town there were four hundred factories (kärgäh)
which wove zïlü.”

Ibn Batüta,92 talking of Djäm (the modern Shaikh Djäm), said: “Most of its trees
are mulberry trees and there is much silk there.” In the time of Makdisi,93 Züzan “had many
weavers and makers of felts (lubüd).” Khawär, said Kazwini,94 produced much cotton
which was taken to other lands.

The Hudüd9S gives a list of places producing muslin (kirbäs), some of which are identi-
fiable, others of which are not to be found on the map (372 h. [982 a.d.]): Kuri, Khäy-
mand, Salümidh, Herat, Büzagän, Sandjän, and Züzan.

For the record of Il-Khänid times, one must again turn to Mustawfi: “Turshïz, Tün,
Zïrküh, and Djunäbäd produce silk; Zäva, silk and cotton; Khwäf, silk and madder; and
Tabas Gilaki, cotton.” 96

Abu ’1-Fidä’ 97 quoting the Lubäb ,98 said of Tabasain: “They export a celebrated silk
(harir) under the name of Tabas silk.” 99

Bayän wa ’l-Tabyin (Cairo, 1332 h. [1913-4 a.d.]), I,
79, quotes a verse of Abü Nuwäs mentioning kühîya.
The Egyptian editor who found difficulty in explaining
the text, noted that kühl is white cloth.

87 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 321.

88 Yakut, op. cit., IV, 23.

89 Mustawfi Kazwini, op. cit., p. 144.

90 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 321.

91 Näsir-i-Khusraw. op. cit., text, p. 95, trans., p. 259.

92 Ibn Battuta, op. cit., Ill, 75.

93 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 321, n.

94 Kazwini, op. cit., II, 243.

95 Hudüd al-‘Àlatn, p. 103.

96 Mustawfi Kazwini, op. cit., pp. 141-43, 152.

97 Géographie d’ Abouljéda, text, p. 449, trans., II,
189.

98 There are two towns called Tabas in Kuhistan
sometimes known collectively as Tabasain.

"Hamadhänl, Makämät (Beirut, 1924), p. 189, in
the fourth century, wrote of stuff called Kühl mumassar
which, he said, meant Kühl cloth dyed with reddish-yel-
low clay. See Nakâ’id of Jarir and al-Farazdak, ed.
A. A. Bevan (Leyden, 1905-12), II, 546.

CHAPTER X

TRANSOXIANA

I N BOKHARA, THE CAPITAL OF SUGHD, THE ANCIENT SOGDIANA, AND ONE OF THE MOST EAST-

erly provinces of the Caliphate (Map 3), there seems to have been a tiräz factory in the Ab-
basid period. It is tempting to think that the Muslims merely took over the previously
existing scheme of taxation in kind, consisting in this case of cloth, as they did in Tabaristän
and elsewhere. Balädhurl 1 mentioned that Transoxiana sent a tribute to the early Arabs
which included silk (harir) and garments (thiyäb), and this would probably be the same tax
that went to the Sasanians. Various textiles also figure in the presents which the last inde-
pendent kings of Bokhara sent to the Chinese,2 and it must be kept in mind that the province
was always open to influences from that quarter, though the Sasanians in their turn exerted
a strong influence on Chinese wares.

Concerning the province in general, Istakhrî said: “As regards clothing (malbös), there
are to be found cotton garments which are so esteemed as to be exported thence to all lands.
They have furs (firä’), wool (süf), and fur (wabar).”3 Ibn Hawkal 4 repeated that “they
have wool, kazz silk, and fine materials (tarä’if) of muslin (kirbäs), and cloth (bazz).”
Yäküt differed but little: “As regards clothing, there are unequaled cotton garments which
are exported to all regions. They have kazz silk, wool, and fur in abundance, as well as
ibrism silk of Khudjand, there being no better ibrlsm to be found.” 5 He also mentioned
furs of various kinds.

It was not, however, until Abü Muslim sent Ziyäd ibn Sälih to quell the revolt against
the Abbasides that Transoxiana came thoroughly under Muslim control. Though they may
have established the tiräz there previously, the most likely date for its institution is the
period of Ma’mün’s residence at Merv; the earliest, and so far as I know, the only account
of the factory is to be found in Narshakhl’s TaWikh-i-Bukhärä, written in 332 h. (943-44
a.d.) for his Samanid patron, the author then being forty-six years of age:

An account of the tiräz factory (bait al-tiräz) which was in Bokhara and which is still standing.

Now, in Bokhara, there was a factory (kärgäh) between the citadel and the Shahristän (which
Barthold says was the original town),6 near the Friday mosque, where they used to weave carpets
(bisät), tapestry (shädurvän), Yazdi (cloth), cushions (bälish), prayer carpets (musallä), striped
Fundukï (either “of a nut color” or “inn, hotel”) cloaks (burd). They used to weave for the caliph,
for the kharädj tax of Bokhara was spent on large carpets (shädurvän). Every year an overseer

1 Balädhurl, Futüh al-Buldän, ed. M. J. de Goeje
(Leyden, 1866), p. 408, trans. by P. Hitti (New York,
1916), p. 167.

2 See Appendix III.

3 Istakhrî. Viae regnorum . . . ., ed. M. J. Goeje,

Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum (= B.G.A.) (Ley-

den, 1870), I, 288.

4 Ibn Hawkal, Viae et régna .... Descriptio ditionis
moslemicae, ed. M. J. de Goeje (B.G.A.) (Leyden,
1873), H, 336.

5 Yakut, Mu'djam al-Buldän, Geographisches Wör-
terbuch, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866-73), IV, 401.

6 W. Barthold, Turkistdn at the Time of the Mongo-
lian Invasion, Gibb Mem. Ser. (London, 1927), n.s. V, 36.

ISBlDJÄB

Map 3 — Transoxiana

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

123

(‘ämil) used to come from Baghdad specially, and he used to take the equivalent of the tax of
Bokhara in this cloth (djäma).

Nowadays it so happens that this factory has become dismantled and the men who used to ex-
ercise that craft have been scattered. In Bokhara there used to be master craftsmen specially noted
for this craft. Merchants used to come from the provinces and, just as people take away zandanïdjï,
they used to take those garments to Syria, Egypt, and the cities of Byzantium (Rüm). They did not
weave them in any other city in Khurasan. The surprising thing is that some of the men who prac-
ticed this craft went to Khurasan and made the tools necessary for this manufacture and wove
those garments, but they did not attain the former luster or splendor (äb ü rawnak). There was no
monarch, emir, or commander who did not possess such robes. There were red, white, and green
varieties, but today zandanïdjï is better known than these garments in all the provinces.7

It is interesting to note how this indirect control of the factory differs from the system
obtaining in Egypt, and perhaps in other factories in Persia. Some of the stuffs may have
been made on commission, as in Egypt. Narshakhi gave no indication as to how and why the
tiräz industry declined. It may have disappeared with the fall of the Tähirids in 259 h.
(873 a.d.), but it probably continued under Saffarid rule, and Minorsky suggested that
this account of its ruined state may be the addition of the Persian translator of the Samanid
period. The indirect control suggests Sasanid methods.

The Samanid dynasty seems to have favored these zandanïdjï cloths of which Nar-
shakhï said, speaking of Zandana, one of the villages of Bokhara:

That which comes from it is called zandanïdjï, which is to say muslin (kirbäs) from the vil-
lage of Zandana, which is both good and plentiful, but many of the villages of Bokhara weave better
cloth, and they call it zandanïdjï because it first made its appearance in that town. This cloth is ex-
ported to all the provinces such as Iraq, Fars, Kerman, and Hindustan. All the nobles and kings
make robes (djäma) of it and buy its brocade at a high price.8

The popularity of this garment may have been partly due to the fact that it was a uni-
form for the Samanid soldiers of the household. Nizâm al-Mulk 9 remarked (485 h. [1092-
93 a.d.]) that the Samanids used to clothe the newly bought slave in zandanïdjï. The second
year he got a horse with a snaffle, headstall, and bridle. In the third year he received a
special belt (karäcür). In the fifth year he got a better saddle and bridle ornamented with
stars (bi-kawkab), a tunic of silk stuff of various colors (kabâ-yi-dârâ’ï 10), and a mace
(dabbüs), which he hung from a ring at his saddle bow; in the sixth year, a parade dress
(djäma-‘unvän) ; and in the seventh he became a Withâk-bâshï, when he was given a Grandja

7 Narshakhi, T a’rikh-i-Bukhärä. Description topo-
graphique et historique de Boukhara, ed. C. Schefer,

Publications de 1’ école des langues orientales vivantes

(=P.E.L.O.V.) (Paris, 1892), III, XIII, 18. I have since
found a translation of this passage by Minorsky in the
Bull. School of Oriental and African Studies (London,

1938), IV, III, 627.

8 Narshakhi, op. cit., p. 35.

9 C. Schefer, Siasset Namèh, Traité de gouvernement
. . . . par le Vizir Nizam oul-Moulk (P.E.L.O.V.) (Paris,
1891-93), text, p. 95, trans, pp. 139-40.

10 See J. A. Vullers, Lexicon Persico-Latinum Etym-
ologicum (Bonn, 1855-67): “Genus panni serici diversi
coloris, genus panni serici quod undulatum dicitur.”

124

R. B. SERJEANT

robe (kabä) and a black felt hat embroidered with silver (kuläh-i-namad-i-siyäh-i-slm-ka-
shida).

This cloth was also exported to Central Asia, for Djuwaini 11 described the cloth with
which the merchants tried to defraud Genghiz Khan as being “gold-embroidered garments
(thiyäb mudhahhab), muslin (kirbäs), and zandapicl.” This variant of the name is also
given by Vullers who described it as a wide robe of white cotton, very coarsely woven and
quilted. Bokhara prospered greatly under the Samanids, but in the Mongol invasions it was
almost entirely destroyed.

Other information is supplied by the geographers. Istakhrl 12 reported that “from
Bokhara and its environs are brought cotton garments which are taken to all countries, as
also carpets (busut), prayer carpets (musallayät), and choice woolen garments.” Ibn
Hawkal 13 said: “Most of their dress consists of cloaks (kabä’) and hats (kalansuwa) like
the dress of Transoxiana.” He noted the cloth markets there, and added: “There are
brought from Bokhara and its environs garments known as BuMiäri which are taken to Iraq,
and other countries; such also is the case with carpets (busut), and garments of wool (süf).”
The Hudüd al-‘Älam 14 merely mentions woolen goods and saltpeter, but Makdisi 15 was bet-
ter informed: “There are brought from Bokhara soft garments, prayer carpets (musallayät),
carpets (busut), and cloth of FundukI carpeting (farsh) .... Tabari cloth. Girths (hazm
al-khail) are woven in the prisons (mahäbis), and Ashmünî garments (of the type made in
Ashmünain in Egypt ?).”

Yäküt16 was also acquainted with the Zandana cloth, for he said: “There are named
after it the ZandandjI garments with the addition of the letter djim. They are well known.”
The earlier western writer Idrïsï, however, did not know them. Another village which manu-
factured these stuffs was Iskadjkat, the people of which were merchants, and from which
muslin (kirbäs) came, according to Narshakhi 17 who further remarked: “In olden times
there used to be a bazaar in the season of Tirmäh for secondhand cloth, such as curtains
(parda) and hangings (sutür), or cloth with some defect, and all kinds of secondhand goods
at Bokhara, where merchants came from Fergana, Djädj, and other places, and used to buy
it.”

11 T a’nkh-i-J ahän-gushä of Juwayrii, Persian text, ed.
Mirza Muhammad (London, 1913-37), Gibb Mem. Ser.,
XVI, I, 59. Cf. E. Wallis Budge, The Chronography of
Bar Hebräern (Oxford, 1932), for a similar passage.
Khâkânl {Diwan, Teheran, 1316-17 h. [1899-1900 a.d.],
p. 144), writing between 500 h. (1106 a.d.) and 595 H.
(1200 a.d.), mentioned zandapïcï (ref. from M. Minovi).
See also V. Minorsky, “Some Early Documents in Per-
sian,” Journ. Royal Asiatic Soc., II (1943), 94 where a
kabä of zandanidjx at Bämiyän is mentioned in 607 h.
(1211 a.d.) .

12 Istakhrl, op. cit., p. 314.

13 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 363.

14 Hudüd al-Àlam, trans. by V. Minorsky, Gibb
Mem. Ser. (London, 1937), n.s., XI, 112.

15 Makdisi (Mukaddasi), Descriptio imperii Moslem-
ici, ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1876; 2d ed.,
1906), III, 324.

16 Yäküt, op. cit., II, 952.

17 Narshakhi, op. cit., p. 31 ff.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

125

The largest of the villages in the Bokhara area was Tawäwis, of which Istakhri 18 said:
“There are brought from it cotton garments which are taken to all places.” Ibn Hawkal 19
added: “It has a market and a great time of reunion when people from all quarters of
Khurasan go to it at a certain time of the year, and from it are brought garments of cotton,
which on account of their abundance are taken to Iraq.” Idrisi 20 repeated this account, but
Abu’l-Fidä’ 21 stated that the city was ruined in his time, probably by the Mongol invaders.

Proceeding along the Sughd river to Samarkand we come to Karminlya to which Mak-
disï 22 ascribed kerchiefs (mandil). Then comes Dabusiya, of which he23 said: “From Dabüsiya
and Widhär come Widhärl garments of one color (musmat), and I have heard a sultan in
Baghdad call them the brocade of Khurasan.” Of Rabindjan he said: “From Rabindjan
come izärs of red felt (lubüd) for winter, prayer carpets (musallayät), and rope (marlr) of
hemp (kunnab).”24

The great city of Samarkand has numerous notices devoted to it from which we can build
a fairly complete history until the Mongol invasion, and even after that. Ibn al-Fakih25
mentioned its Samarkand! garments, and Istakhri 26 reported that “Samarkand is a
meeting place of merchants and the empcrium of Transoxiana. Most of the supplies of
Transoxiana come to Samarkand and are then distributed to the provinces.” Ibn ‘Abd Rab-
bihi,27 the Spanish author, also mentioned the Samarkand! garments, and Benjamin of Tu-
dela 28 talked of Jews in Samarkand.

Makdisi gave the following list:

There are brought from Samarkand silver-colored garments ( thiyäb sïmkün), Samarkand! (stuff),
. . . . and tents (akhbiya) .... From Samarkand too come brocade, which is carried to the Turks,
and red garments called mumardjal, and Sïnïzî, as well as much kazz silk and garments of that ma-
terial.29

The Latä’if al-Ma‘ärij 30 said: “Among the special products of Samarkand are the
Widhärl garments.” These are obviously derived from the village of Widhär, and Idris! gave
a long account of them, so that they were known in the West, by repute, at least:

They make there (in Widhär) stuffs called Widhärl, woven of cotton on cotton, and made with

18 Istakhri, op. cit., p. 313.

19 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 362.

20 Idrisi, Géographie, trans. by P. A. Jaubert (Paris,
1836-40), II, 195. Ibn al-Athir, Chronicon, ed. C. J.
Tornberg (Leyden, 1851-76), XII, 199, mentions a
Bukhari shirt (kamis) about the year 61 1 h. (1214 a.d.).

21 Géographie d’Aboulféda, trans. by M. Reinaud
(Paris, 1845-83), II, 217.

22 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 324.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibn al-Fakih, Compendium libri Kitäb al-Boldän,
ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1885), V, 255.

26 Istakhri, op. cit., p. 318.

27 Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al-Ikd al-Farid (Cairo, 1331 h.
[1913 a.d.]), IV, 268.

28 The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. and
trans. by M. N. Adler (London, 1907), trans. p. 59.

29 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 325. Mardjil is a kind of
striped Yemen stuff, and this may be what is intended
by the term mumardjal here. See Chap. XV.

30 Tha'älibi, Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif, ed. P. de Jong (Ley-
den, 1867), p. 126. Cf. Tha'âlibî’s Thimär al-Kulüb,
(Cairo, 1326 h. [1908 a.d.]), p. 432, which has the read-
ing Wizârïya.

I 2 6

R. B. SERJEANT

an astonishing art; they are employed raw and without being cut. There is not a prince, minister,
or cadi in the whole of Khurasan who does not wear one in winter over his clothes. The beauty of
these stuffs is evident and their splendor is famous. They are of a color approaching yellow saf-
fron, soft and light to the touch, but nevertheless very thick, excellent in their wearing qualities, and
durable. The price of a robe varies from three to twenty dinars according to the quality. In short,
it is impossible to find anything better, whether as regards beauty, whether as regards solidity.31

Yäküt 32 said that the town in which Widhäri garments were made was six miles from Samar-
kand.

Vâmbéry 33 noted that Samarkand silk and cotton weavers were distributed by Ghenghiz
Khan among his relations as useful servants, or else taken to Khurasan. The conquest com-
pletely changed local conditions and led to a great infiltration of Chinese craftsmen. This
has been remarked by a certain Ch’ang Ch’un 34 who said that they are to be found every-
where at Samarkand. They seem to have been mainly agriculturists. The people were quite
unable to manage their fields and orchards for themselves and were obliged to call in Chinese,
Kitai, and Tanguts. He recorded also a drop in population after the defeat of the
Khwärizmshäh, from one hundred thousand households (say over a half million people) to
a quarter of that number in Samarkand. This was doubtless due to the Mongol massacres
and deportations which denuded the country of labor. Some of these workmen may have been
cloth workers, for he35 spoke of a place Chieu-chieu-chau (Rashid al-Din’s Kem-kemdjiyuta)
in the southeast Kirkhiz country where Chinese workmen were settled and wove “fine silks,
gauze, brocade, and damask.”

Of Dizak (Djizak) in the same group, Makdisi36 said: “From Dizak excellent felts
and cloaks (kabä’) of felt are brought.”

In the neighborhood of Balkh (properly in Khurasan) there was another group of
cloth-manufacturing cities, briefly noted by the geographers.

Cagäniyän, according to the Hudüd al-Àlam 37 produces “woolen cloths, palas rugs, and
much saffron.”

Tirmidh38 “produces green matting (büriyä) and fans (bädh-bizan).”

Darzandji 39 “produces puttees (päy-täba), different sorts of tapestry-woven carpets
(gilimlna), and woolen carpets (bisât-i-pashmïn).” Makdisi 40 found that most of its in-
habitants were workers in wool (suwwäf), manufacturing robes (aksiya).

Kuwädhiyän. Istakhri 41 said: “From al-Kuwädhiyän comes madder (fuwwa).”

31 Idrïsï, op. cit., II, 2oi. I read Widhär here for
Jaubert’s Wabdhär. The text here is suspect.

32 Yäküt, op. cit., IV, 944.

33 A. Vâmbéry, History of Bukhara (London, 1873),
p. 132.

34 Li Chih Ch’ang, Travels of an Alchemist, trans. by
A. Waley (London, 1931), p. 93.

35 Ibid., p. 124.

36 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 325.

37 Hudüd al-Àlam, p. 114.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 283.

41 Is(akhri, op. cit., p. 298.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

127

Idrïsï 42 added: “From Kuwädhiyän they bring to Washdjird much cotton and madder (?)
with which they make the red color which is largely exported to India. The sultan puts a tax
on these various productions.”

Shümän and Washdjird were also famous for their saffron, according to Idrïsï.43

Khutlàn was noted by Mustawfï 44 as producing cotton.

In the north of Transoxiana, there was yet another group, the largest city of which was
Shäsh (Tashkent). Makdisï 45 found that “tents (akhbiya), saddles of shagreen (kïmukht)
of value, izärs .... prayer carpets (musallayät), capes ornamented at the neck (banïkât46)
.... and cotton which is taken to the Turks.”

From Banäkath, said Makdisï,47 come garments of Turkestan. He48 again noted that
Isbïdjâb has a muslin market (Sük al-Karâbïs), and from there and from Fergana, Turkish
slaves and white garments were exported. This cloth trade seems to have been established
early, for Abu ’l-Käsim 49 of Baghdad talked with familiarity of Kharshânï carpets (tinfisa)
from the district watered by the Kharshän tributary of the Saihün.

From Sikäshim, says the Hüdüd al-‘Älam,S0 “come covers for saddle cloths (rüy-i-
namad-zïn).sl

42 Idrïsï, op. cit., I, 482. The word madder has been
inserted by analogy with other texts to fill the lacuna in
the translation.

42 Ibid.

44 Hamd-Allâh Mustawfï Kazwïnï, The Geographical
Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulüb , trans. by G. Le Strange,
Gibb Mem. Ser. (Leyden-London, 1919), XXIII, II, 153.

45 Makdisï, op. cit., p. 325.

46 See Indices, Glossarium et Addenda . . . ., ed. M. J.
de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1879), IV. R. Dozy, Supplé-
ment aux dictionnaires arabes (2d ed.; Paris, 1927), and
idem, Dictionnaire détaillé des noms des vêtements chez
les Arabes (Amsterdam, 1845), contain further references
to various sources including Makkari.

47 Makdisï, op. cit., p. 325.

48 Ibid., pp. 272 and 325.

49 Abu ’1-Mutahhar al-Azdï, Hikäyat Abi ’l-Käsim,
ed. A. Mez (Heidelberg, 1902), p. 36. For Kharshän
see the index to G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern
Caliphate (Cambridge, 1930).

50 Hudû d al-Älam, p. 121. See the map, pp. 338-39.
Cf. Tabari, Annales, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leyden, 1879-
1901), III, III, 1689; also ‘Umari, “Masälik al-Absär,
Notice de l’ouvrage .... Mesalek alabsar fi memalek
alamsar,” Acad, des inscriptions et belles-lettres, notices
et extraits (1836), III, I, 239.

51 Additional note. — Ghenghiz Khan settled Arab
and Chinese craftsmen at Karakorum (Bar Hebraeus,
op. cit., I, 298).

Map 4 — Khoresm (Khwârizm)

CHAPTER XI
KHORESM (KHWÄRIZM)

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1 OF THE PRODUCTS OF THE COUNTRY OF KHORESM IS GIVEN IN

Makdisi :

From Khoresm come sable skins (sammür), squirrel fur (sindjäb), weasel skins (kkün), desert
fox furs (fanak), weasel furs (dalah), fox furs (tha'lab), beaver skins (khazbüst), and goat skin
(buzbüst) .... and kalansuwa caps and shagreen (kimukht) .... all the above from Bulghär. From
Khoresm are brought striped cloaks (burüd), carpets (fursh), cloth for blankets (thiyäb al-luhuf),
brocade for presents (dibädj bishkash), veils of cloth with a warp of silk and a woof of some other
material (makäni* mulham) .... and garments of Arandj (colored stuff).2

IdrisI3 said: “From this country cotton and linen stuffs and various articles of mer-
chandise for export are derived.” He, too, mentioned its furs. According to Yäküt: “It has
many trees. Most of all there are the mulberry (tüt) and the willow (khiläf), because of
their need for them in their buildings and for feeding the silkworm (düd al-ibrïsm) .” 4

The Arab geographers generally called the capital, Käth, after the name of the prov-
ince, and thereby some confusion arises. Istakhri and Ibn Hawkal referred to the town:
“From it comes a large supply of garments of cotton and wool which are taken to all re-
gions,” 5 and “their dress consists of tunics (kurtak).”6 Ibn Hawkal7 called them “twisted
kalansuwa caps” and commended their beauty.

According to the Hudüd: “Käth is a resort of merchants. ... It produces covers for
cushions ( rûy-i-mikhadda) , quilted garments (kazägand), cotton stuffs (karbäs), felt.”8

The Latä’if al-Ma‘ärij,9 however, is probably referring to Urgandj in the passage which
will be quoted below, because it was toward the end of the fourth (tenth) century that Käth
was supplanted by Urgandj as the capital city of Khoresm: “The muslins (kirbäs) called
Arandj are among its specialties. They say that the Amiri kind of them does not fall short of
the haffi of Nishapur, the munaiyar of Rayy, the poppy-colored kind (khäshkhäshi) of
Djurdjän, and the Dabiki of Egypt.” It notes that the merchandise and the special prod-
ucts of Khoresm are similar to those of Turkish lands.

There was an emir of Gurgandj who succeeded in conquering south Khoresm in the year

1 Makdisi (Mukaddasi), Descriptio imperii Mos-
lemici, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum
Arabicorum (= B.G.A .) (Leyden, 1876; 2d ed., 1906),

HI, 325-

2 See Indices, Glossarium et Addenda . . . ., ed. M. J.
de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1879), IV; also see Djawä-
lïkï, Kitäb al-Mu‘arrab, ed. E. Sachau (Leipzig, 1867),
p. 156 where Arandadj. is a black skin.

3 Idrïsî, Géographie, trans. by P. A. Jaubert (Paris,
1836-40), II, 91.

4 Yakut, Mu'djam al-Buldän, Geographisches Wör-

terbuch, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866-73), II, 482.

5 Istakhri, Viae regnorum . . . ., ed. M. J. de Goeje,
B.G.A. (Leyden, 1870), I, 304.

6 See R. Dozy, Dictionnaire détaillé des noms des
vêtements chez les Arabes (Amsterdam, 1845).

7 Ibn Hawkal, Viae et régna .... Descriptio ditionis
vioslemica, ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1873),
II, 354-

8 Hudüd al-Âlam, trans. by V. Minorsky, Gibb Mem.
Ser. (London, 1937), n.s., XI, 121.

9 Tha'âlibî, Latä’if al-Ma‘ ärif, ed. P. de Jong (Ley-
den, 1867), p. 129.

i3°

R. B. SERJEANT

385 h. (995 a.d.) and who arrogated the title of Khwärizmshäh to himself. It seems likely
that these Amïrï garments mean tiräz-inscribed garments containing the title “amir,” and
the factory would be in Urgandj because it was in that same year that the emir destroyed
Käth. Previously this northern part of the province with its capital Urgandj had been sep-
arate from the kingdom of the Khwärizmshähs.

South of Käth was Hazärasp, and Yakut10 wrote that “in it are many markets and
cloth merchants (bazzäzün).”

10 Yakut, op. cit., IV, 971.

CHAPTER XII
KERMAN AND SEISTAN

Although not the capital of the province, bam in kerman was the chief manu-
facturing center, and at one time possessed a tiräz factory. Ibn Khaldûn 1 stated that five
hundred pieces of Yemen stuff were sent with the tribute from the province of Kerman
(Map s).

Istakhri was very brief indeed: “From Bam garments of cotton, which are taken to all
districts, are exported.” 2 Ibn Hawkal, however, was far more informative:

Bam is larger than Djiruft, and splendid robes of great value and durability are made there
from the cotton, and taken to many quarters of the earth. Among its choice articles which are made
there are the tailasäns which are made with hollows (tayälisa mukawwara, i.e., possibly with some
kind of raised pile or embroidery which gave the appearances of hollows?), woven into festoons
(rafraf), and a single one of which, when of fine sharb linen fetches thirty dinars, more or less when
sold in Iraq, Misr, and Khurasan. They have also famous turbans (‘imäma) which are much sought
after by the people of Iraq, Misr, and Khurasan. Their garments have a lastingness like the cloths
of Aden and Sana, the least of which lasts from five to twenty years. Their robes are the kind that
kings store and acquire. They had a tiräz factory of the sultan, but it perished when he did.3

Presumably, the Buwaihid Sultan Rukn al-Dawla is intended here, or else his father, but
owing to the disturbed state of the country at that time it is impossible to be certain. The
origin of the tiräz factory was probably before the time of Ma’miin, if we assume that the Ye-
men stuffs were made in a tiräz factory.

A list of products is given in the Hudüd ,4 which notes that “from it come cotton stuffs
(‘imäma), Bam turbans (or kerchiefs, dastâr-i-bamï).” Makdisï 5 found that the BammI
manufactures were not confined to Bam alone: “In Awärik and Mihrakird are made many
garments after the Bammi manufacture which are exported as they are. Bam has many
skilled and dexterous craftsmen and famous markets, the cloth of which is sought every-
where .... most of them are weavers. . . . Most of the garments which are manufactured are
made in Djabal Küd (a parasang away from it). . . . From Bam are brought turbans and
kerchiefs (mandil), tailasäns, and precious garments preferred above all the Merv weaves.”

Even Idrisi in the West had heard of Bam manufactures:

Its inhabitants are engaged in trade and industry. They make here a quantity of beautiful
cotton stuffs which are the object of considerable export, and mantles of goat hair which equal in

1 Ibn Khaldun, Les Prolégomènes d’Ibn Khaldoun,
trans. by M. de Slane (Paris, 1863-68), I, 364.

2 Istakhri. Viae regnorum . . . ., ed M. J. de Goeje,
Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum (— B.G.A.)
(Leyden, 1870), I, 167.

3 Ibn Hawkal, Viae et régna .... Descriptio ditionis

rnoslemicae, ed M. J. de Goeje (B.G.A.), II, 223. The

rendering of tayälisa mukawwara is uncertain. The new
edition of Ibn Hawkal may resolve this difficulty.

4 Hudüd al-Älam, trans. by V. Minorsky, Gibb Mem.
Ser. (London, 1937), n.s., XI, 125.

5 Makdisï (Mukaddasï), Descriptio imperii Mos-
lemici, ed. M. J. de Goeje, B.G.A. (Leyden, 1876; 2d
ed., 1906), III, 465, 466, 470.

132

R. B. SERJEANT

fineness the most beautiful it is possible to see. There are some, the price of which equals thirty
dinars. Finally, they make, too, very fine stuffs for turbans. All these stuffs are of fine workman-
ship and solidity so that they do not wear out and only perish at the end of a very long lapse of time.
Kings are proud to wear them, and consider them precious and keep them with care in their treas-
uries.6

Yäküt7 quoted earlier sources such as the above.

Apart from one or two large towns, Kerman was never an industrial province, because
it was largely desert, but it was celebrated for its commerce, lying straddled as it does across
the land route to India. In the eastern quarter of the province, according to Makdisi 8 “there
is made in Sîrdjân a great deal of this (Bammi) cloth.” The Ïl-Khânid author Mustawfi 9
talked of its cotton production. From Zarand, said Istakhri,10 “famous linings (bitäna) are
brought which are taken to Fars and Iraq.”

Kerman became the capital of the province in the fourth (tenth) century under the
Buwaihids, and it is likely that the governor would have had a tiräz factory there. The only
source for the manufactures there which I have been able to discover is Marco Polo:

The ladies of that country and their daughters also produce exquisite needlework in the em-
broidery of silk stuffs in different colors, with figures of beasts and birds, trees, and flowers, and a
variety of other patterns. They work hangings for the use of noblemen so deftly that they are a
marvel to see, as well as cushions, pillows, quilts, and all sorts of things.11

Rather similar to this is the following passage from the early nineteenth-century trav-
eler Buckingham:

Printed cloths and handkerchiefs are manufactured also in great abundance, and carpets are
wrought which are thought to be equal to any produced in the whole empire. These are chiefly the
work of females of distinction; since to spin, to sew, and to embroider are the chief accomplish-
ments of their education. These carpets are mostly made by the needle, with colored worsteds on a
woven substance, in the way young ladies in England of the middle ranks work mats for tea urns.
These, from their size and quality, sometimes cost fifty tumans, equal to as many pounds sterling
each, though there are others at all prices below this. Others again of an inferior quality are alto-
gether woven in colors and sold at a cheaper rate, these being the work of men. There are no large
manufactories of either, however, as both are wrought in private dwellings and, when finished,
brought into the bazaar for sale.12

Of textile manufactures at Djlruft wre have no information, but Istakhri, Idrïsï, and

6 Idrïsï, Géographie, trans. by P. A. Jaubert (Paris,
1836-40), I, 423.

1 Yäküt, Mu'djam al-Buldän, Geographisches Wör-
terbuch, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866-73), I, 737.

8 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 470.

9 Hamd-Alläh Mustawfï Kazwïnï, The Geographi-
cal Part of the N uzhat-al-Qulüb , trans. by G. Le Strange,
Gibb Mem. Ser. (Leyden-London, 1919), XXIII, II, 140.

10 Istakhri. op. cit. p. 167. Abu ’1-Fidä! {Géographie

d’ Aboulféda, texte arabe . . . . ed. M. Reinaud et M. de
Slane [Paris, 1840], p. 337; trans. M. Reinaud [Paris,
1847-83], II, 103), quoted Ibn Hawkal to the same
effect.

11 H. Yule, The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Vene-
tian (London, 1871), I, 92.

12 J. S. Buckingham, Travels in Assyria, Media, and
Persia (London, 1829), I, 193-94.

Map 5 — Kerman and Seistan

134

R. B. SERJEANT

Abu ’1-Fidâ’ 13 all wrote that it was the emporium of Khurasan and Seistan. The only exports
from Kerman mentioned by Djähiz 14 are indigo and cumin, the former of which seems al-
ways to have been an important article of merchandise. Ibn Hawkal 15 said: “From the ter-
ritories of Maghûn and Walashdjird to the district of Hurmuz, indigo and cumin are planted
and taken everywhere.” Makdisi 16 too, said: “From the districts of Djiruft, much indigo
(nil) is brought.” Idrisi 17 also remarked on the indigo of Hurmuz.

SEISTAN

The semidesert country of Seistan (Sïstân, or Sidjistän) was never a cloth manufacturing
center, nor even an important administrative center, except for a brief period under the Saffa-
rid dynasty. It did, however, send three hundred pieces of stuff marked with circles (mu‘aiyan)
along with the tribute to Ma’mün. Abü Dulaf 1S has left us one short sentence to show that
the Saffarid dynasty had royal factories there, presumably at the capital Zarandj, for he does
not mention any particular place. Abü Dulaf visited the ruler Khalaf ibn Ahmed, and no-
ted: “He has in the country a tiräz factory in which garments are made. Every day he confers
a robe of honor on one of his visitors, five thousand dirhams beings spent on it in the tiräz.”

General descriptions of the products of this reign are given in the Hudüd aUÄlam and
by Tha‘ alibi. The former 19 says: “The province produces stuffs used as carpets (djäma-
hä-yi-farsh) similar to those of Tabaristän, zïlü rugs similar to the Djahram kind.” Tha‘älibi
numbered among the specialties of the country “ceremonial drums” (al-tubül al-mawkibiya),
and the brocaded carpets (dabäbidj al-farsh).20 Some of these must have been made in Za-
randj. It is significant that the province had no characteristic fabric of its own, but showed a
tendency to derive from Fars, Tabaristän, and almost certainly from India.

Bust was the second largest city in Seistan, and Istakhri 21 said: “There is commerce
in it with India and Sind.” According to the Hudüd: “Bust is the gate of Hindustan, and
the resort of merchants .... it produces cotton stuffs (karbäs).”22 The city was ultimately
destroyed by Timur.

One march from Bust, in a direction unspecified, lay Zälikän, of which Istakhri 23 said:

13 Istakhri, op. cit., p. 166. Idrisi, op. cit., I, 422.
Abu T-Fidä’, op. cit., trans., II, 103. The Seljuk histories
edited by T. Houtsma might yield some chance infor-
mation about tiräz factories in this province, but time
has not permitted me to examine them.

14 Djähiz, “Al-Tabassur bi ’1-Tidjära,” ed. Hasan H.
‘Abd al-Wahhâb, Revue de l’acad. arabe de Damas, XII
(1351 h. [1932 A.D.] ) , 345.

15 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 223.

16 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 470.

17 Idrisi, op. cit., I, 424.

18 Kurd de Schloezer, Abu Dolaf Misaris ben Mohal-
hal de itinere suo asiatico (Berlin, 1845), p. 28, an ex-
tract from Kazwini. He actually mentioned Abü Dja‘far

Muhammad b. Ahmed b. al-Laith who, said Brockel-
mann, is the same as Khalaf b. Ahmed taken prisoner
by Mahmud of Ghazni in the year 1002-3 a.d. See the
article “Mi'sar ibn Muhalhil” in Encycl. Islam, III, 519.—
Abü Dulaf’s journey has been republished from a new
manuscript by Messrs. Brill of Leyden.

19 Hudüd al-Älam, p. no.

20 Tha‘àlibî, Latä’if al-Ma‘ärif, ed. P. de Jong (Ley-
den, 1867), p. 124, repeated by al-Nuwairi Nihäyat al-
Arab ji Funün al-Adab (Cairo, 1923-37), I, 366.

21 Istakhri. op. cit., p. 245.

22 Hudüd al-Älam, p. 110.

23 Istakhri. op. cit., p. 248. Yäküt, op. cit., III, 363.
Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 304.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

135

“Most of the inhabitants are weavers.” Ibn Hawkal and Yäküt repeated this statement, and
Idrisi 24 remarked: “Most of its inhabitants are weavers and their principal commerce con-
sists in stuffs which are sold and exported in considerable quantities.”

Perhaps here the city of Kabul should be included. Ibn Hawkal 25 said: “Indigo (nil)
is sold in Kabul every year, which is made in its gardens and cultivated land. . . . From Kabul
beautiful garments of cotton are brought of which wrappers (sabnlya) are made, which go
to China, and go forth to Khurasan and are distributed throughout Sind and its districts.”
This text must suffice to represent the fame of the indigo of Kabul, mentioned by many
authors.

24 Idrïsï, op. cit., I, 446.

25 Ibn Hawkal, op. cit., p. 328. Idrïsï, op. cit., I, 183.

CHAPTER XIII

THE TIRÄZ IN INDIA
T"'

1 HE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE ABBASID TIRÂZ SYSTEM MAY EVEN HAVE EXTENDED TO INDIA,

but I have found no other reference to any such institution before the Tughlukid period.
India really falls outside the scope of this work, but an appendix on Indian and Chinese
influences will be found later in this survey.

The Ta’rïkh-i-Fïrüz Shâhï of Diyä’ al-Dïn Baranï 1 tells us that the Sultan Muhammad
(who reigned from 720-52 h. [1320-51 a.d.]) decided, for various reasons of policy, to
recognize the Abbasid caliphate. He paid allegiance to the representatives of the family
who were in Egypt, in the year 744 h. (1343-44 a.d.), and in return he received a robe of
honor (khiha) : “He ordered that on the tiräz inscription of gold-embroidered robes of value,
they should inscribe the name of the caliph and nothing else (dar tiräz-i-djämahä-yi-zarbaft-ü
kïmatï).” A robe of honor which probably came from this Delhi tiräz factory is mentioned
by Ibn Batiita; 2 it was presented by the king of India, Muhammad Shah, and was made “of
blue silk embroidered with gold and spangled with jewels (khika al-harir al-azrak, muzarka-
sha bi ’1-dhahab wa murassa‘a bi ’1-djawähir).”

Kalkashandï described the state factories of the Tughlukid:

Therein, of those who are master craftsmen, are the makers of swords, bows, spears, armor
(zarad) and other kinds of weapons, jewelers (suwwägh), makers of embroideries (zaräkisha), and
masters of other crafts. . . . The Sultan of Delhi has a tiräz factory (dar al-tiräz) in which there
are four thousand manufacturers of silk (kazzäz), making all kinds of textiles for robes of honor
(khil‘a), robes (kasäwä), and presents (itläkät), besides the cloth of China, Iraq, and Alexandria
which is brought there.3

The Tughlukid dynasty was overthrown four years before Kalkashandï ’s death; the in-
tricate court organization of the Mogul period is well known and several accounts of its
manufactures are available.

The passage from Kalkashandï is founded on a much fuller account in the earlier Masä-
lik al-Absär of ‘Umari.4 The latter author is describing contemporary events. Speaking of
the dress of the notables of Delhi, he said:

The linen garments which are imported from Alexandria and the land of the Russians are
worn only by those whom the sultan honors with them. The others wear tunics and robes of fine
cotton. They make garments with this material which resemble the robes (makâtk) of Baghdad.
But these latter, as also those called Nasâfî, differ very much from those of India as regards fine-
ness, beauty of color, and delicacy.

1 Diyâ’ al-Dîn Baranï, Ta’r'ikh-i-Fïrûz Shâhï, ed.
Saiyid Ahmed Khan (Calcutta, 1888-91), p. 493.

2 Ibn Battüta, Voyages d’ Ibn Batoutah, ed. and

trans. by C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti (Paris,

1853-59), I, 362.

3 Kalkashandï, Subh al-A‘shâ (Cairo, 1331 h. [1913
a.d.]), V, 83 and 84.

4 ‘Umarï, “Notice de 1’ ouvrage .... Mesalek alabsar
fi memalek alamsar,” Acad, des inscriptions et belles-
lettres, notices et extraits, XIII (1838), 183. Cf. Kalka-
shandï, op. cit., V, 93.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

137

Again, he said: “No Indian but the Sultan and those whom he permits to do so may
have gold-embroidered saddles. The rest usually have silver embroideries.”5 He also described
the costume of the Indians,6 and wrote that “most of their Tartar (Tatar!) robes are
embroidered with gold (muzarkasha bi-dhahab). Some wear garments with both sleeves
having a tiräz border of gold embroidery (zarkash).7 Others, for example the Mongols, place
the tiräz inscription between the shoulders.8

Besides the account of the robe, Ibn Batüta had an interesting anecdote:

In the year 743 h. (1342 a.d.) the king of China sent to the sultan of India at Delhi a present
containing, among other things, five hundred pieces of kamkhä (Chinese silk), of which a hundred
were of those made in the town of Thsiouen-tcheou-fou (Zaitün), and of which another hundred were
made in Hang-tcheou-fou (Khansä). There were, beside, five garments studded with jewels, and five
gold-embroidered quivers (taräkish muzarkasha). In return the sultan sent five BairamI garments,
which are of cotton, each worth a hundred dinars, a hundred pieces of djuzz stuff which consists of
silk, a single piece of which is dyed with five colors, a hundred pieces of stuff called Salähi, and a
hundred garments of Shîrln-bâf, and a hundred of Shän-bäf, and five hundred of goat hair (mar'izz),
of which a hundred were black, another white, another red, another green, and another blue. There
were also a hundred pieces of Rümi (Greek) linen (kattän).9

s Ibid., p. 201.

6 Ibid., p. 213.

7 Ibid., p. 215. Cf. Kalkashand! {op. cit., V, 39),

who said that the sultans, khans, and maliks wore “Ta-
tar (garments)” (reading here for the text’s

), takläwät (?, described by Dozy as “genre

de vêtement porté dans l’Inde et en Egypte par les
émirs”), and Khwàrizmian robes (kabâ’), drawn in at
the waist, and small turbans (Tmäma) a single turban not
going beyond five or six yards (dhirä1) (in length) ; their
apparel being of white material (bayäd) and “drap
(djukh).”

8 See N. A. Reath and E. B. Sachs, Persian Textiles
and Their Technique (New Haven, 1937), PL 51.

9 Ibn Battuta, op. cit., IV, 1 ff. For kamkhä see
Chap. VI, n. 68 and elsewhere.

For further material on Indian cloth, see Dharam
Pal, “ ‘Alâ’-ud-Dîn’s Price Control System,” Islamic Cul-
ture (Haidarabad, 1944), XVIII, 1, should be seen. His
material is based on Barani.

At a later period than that covered by this inquiry,
Indian textiles were evidently well known in Persia. The
fifteenth-century author Nizâm al-Din Mahmud Kär! of

Yezd in his Diwän-i-Albisa (Constantinople, 1303 h.),
p. 17, said that from Asia Minor (Rûm), Cathay (Khità),
and the land of Hindustan, come marvelous textiles. He
mentioned cloths from many countries and provinces at
the market (ibid., p. 152): “Some have traversed the
road from Egypt such as dikk (brocade, for which see
Chap. I, n. 17, of this study, Ars Islamica, IX), Dabîkï,
spangled linen cloth (kasab), and Bunduki (described by
the editor as a fine white cloth of which the Egyptians
make shirts [pirähän]. Is this Venetian cloth?). Some
had trodden the road from Hindustan, such as Shams!
(sun-cloth?), and sälü (a red cloth mixed with black, suit-
able for women’s apparel and turbans) of Säghar (a town
in the Deccan?), and ‘two-circle’ cloth (? dü-çhanbarï),
and royal (Sultan!) Bairam! (an ibrishm-silk cloth like
mithkäl!), and the two warp manufacture of the court
(? dü tärah-yi-kar-i-bärgah-i).”

In this list he mentioned also the women’s headcloths
(mi'djar) of Antioch, the çhikan (cloth wrought with a
needle in flowers and gold, or embroidery) of Aftakun (?)
from Asia Minor (Rum), Crimean linen (kattän-i-
Kirimï), Cyprus and Aleppo wool, Kamkhä of Cathay,
the sälü-cloth of Kandahar, and other cloths. On p. 86 is
a reference to the cloth of Egypt and Hindustan.

CHAPTER XIV
SYRIAN TEXTILES

TP HOUGH SYRIA WAS A COUNTRY WITH SEVERAL VERY IMPORTANT MANUFACTURING CITIES

(Map 6), there is a lack of documentation concerning them. The ports and inland cities of
this province have always been great commercial centers; the Hudüd tells us: “Whatever is
produced in the Maghrib, Egypt, Rüm (Byzantium), and Andalus, is brought there.” 1 Mak-
disï 2 listed garments of cotton, mulham stuffs, and wrappers (füta), as the articles of trade
there.

The carpets (anmät) of Antioch are known as early as al-Asma‘i,3 who cited a verse of
Zuhair of the pre-Islamic era, speaking of a stuff called Antäkiya of a red color. At a much
earlier date (260 a.d.), Shäpür transported some of its inhabitants to Djundishäpör, while,
in the year 42 h. (662 a.d.) Balädhurl 4 noted that Mu'äwiya transplanted some Persians
to Antioch and others from Baalbek, Hims, Basra, and Kufa.

Idrisi stated: “In Antioch excellent garments of a single color (thiyäb musmata),
‘Attäbi, and Dastuwâ’ï (of the type manufactured in Dastuwä in Djibäl) . and Isfahànî (from
Isfahan), and the like,5 are made.”6

The sister city of Aleppo is better documented than Antioch. Makdisï 7 only mentioned
its garments and its cotton, but Makrïzï, quoting an earlier source for the Fatimid period
and discussing the tents in their treasuries, said:

There was brought out the large tent (fustät) known as al-mudawwara al-kabira (“the Large
Round One”), with the manufacture of which, at Aleppo, Abu ’l-Hasan Ali ibn Ahmed, known as
Ibn al-Aysar (“the left-handed”) had been entrusted some time after the year 440 h. (1048 a.d.).
Thirty thousand dinars had been spent upon its cloth (khirka), decoration (naksh, probably such as
embroidery), fabrication, and appurtenances.8

This might imply that there was a Fatimid tiräz factory in Aleppo, though Ibn al-Aysar
may have been a private individual, not a state employee.

1 Hudüd al-Àlam, trans. by V. Minorsky, Gibb Mem.
Ser. (London, 1937), n.s. XI, 148.

2 Makdisï (MukaddasI), Descriptio imperii Moslem-
ici, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arab-
icorum (=B.G.A.) (Leyden, 1876; 2d ed., 1906), III,
180.

3 al-Tabrïzï, “A Commentary on Ten Ancient Arabic
Poems,” ed. C. J. Lyall, Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta,
1891-94), p. 55. Al-Asmai lived from 112 h. (740 a.d.)
to 213 h. (828 a.d.) and is a reliable philologist. See
“al-Asma‘i,” Encyl. Islam, I.

4 Balâdhurï, Futüh al-Buldân, ed. M. J. de Goeje

(Leyden, 1866), p. 148, trans. by P. Hitti (New York,

1916), I, 228.

5 J. Gildemeister, Idrïsï, Palaestina et Syria (Bonn,
1885), p. 23. For “Dastuwâ’ï,” perhaps the reading
“Tustari” would be better. See Chap. VIII, n. 36.

6 There is an account of Antioch from Ibn al-Shihna
in Denkschr. d. Wiener Akad. d. Wissensch., 1852, Abt.
2, 21, but it gives no information about textiles. A. v.
Kremer, “Beiträge zur Geographie des Nördlichen Sy-
riens (nach Ibn Schihne’s: Dorr-el-Montacheb fi Tärlch
Haleb),” Denkschr. d. k. Akad. d. Wissensch. Phil.-Hist.
Classe, III (Wien, 1852), Abt. II, 21.

7 Makdisï, op. cit., p. 181.

8 Makrïzï, Khitat (Bulaq, 1270 h. [1853 a.d.]), I,
419, line 30.

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

139

Yäküt 9 has preserved part of the journey of Ibn Butlän, who traveled through this part
of the world about the same date. This traveler remarked: “One of the marvels of Aleppo
is that, in the cloth market (Kaisariya-al-Bazz), there are twenty shops owned by agents in
which, each day, they sell goods to the value of twenty thousand dinars. That has continued
for twenty years and up to this very day.”

In the year 515 h. (1116-17 a.d.), Makrlzi 10 said that the new vizier, Ma’mun of
Egypt, remitted, among other taxes, “three garments of Aleppo.”

A list of taxes on the city is given by Ibn al-Shihna for the year 609 h. (12 12-13 a.d.),
which includes the following among many other items of all kinds: the tax on dyeing fac-
tories, 80,000 dirhams; the tax on indigo (reading doubtful) 20,000 dirhams; the tax on silk,
80,000 dirhams.

He added:

One of the specialties of the town is also the traffic in imported merchandise, silk, linen, Yazdi
(cloth), Persian stuffs, furs, (martens, washk, fanak, squirrel, fox, etc.), Indian merchandise, Cir-
cassian, Turkish, and Byzantine articles of luxury. Sales of a single day at Aleppo are often greater
than those of a month in other cities. . . . Ten loads of silk, for instance, brought to Aleppo, are sold
that very day for ready money, whereas ten loads taken to Cairo, though the largest of cities, are
not sold there till the end of the month.11

He mentioned a khan of the goat hair sellers inside the walls.11“ Bidlïsï 12 said: “Aleppo
is so much a trading city that it is called Kücük Hind ('Little India’).” 13

To the southwest of Aleppo was A‘zäz of which one manuscript of Abu ’1-Fidä’ mentions:
“In particular, cotton is cultivated there, which is then laden in ships and taken to Ceuta
whence it is distributed throughout the west.” 14

Concerning al-Bäb, between Aleppo and Manbidj, Yäküt said: “It possesses markets
in which muslin (kirbäs) is made that is taken to Egypt (Misr) and Damascus and called
after it.” 15 Of the town of Haffa, he said: “It is said that the HaffI garments are named
after it, but all I know is that haff is an instrument used by weavers with which these gar-
ments are made, but it is not used in all garments.” 16 This explanation of the name is prob-
ably correct, and it seems unlikely that these garments derived their name from this obscure
village.

According to Balädhuri,17 Hishäm founded Rusäfa in Syria (105 h. [723-24 a.d.]),

9 Yakut, Mu'djam al-Buldän , Geographisches Wörter-
buch, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866-73), II, 307-8.

10 Makrlzi, Khitat, Description topographique et his-
torique de V Egypte, trans. by U. Bouriant and P. Casa-
nova (Paris, 1900-20), pp. 239-40.

11 Les Perles choisies d’ Ibn ach-Chinna, trans. by
J. Sauvaget, (Beyrouth, 1933), pp. 163 and 199.

lla Ibid.

12 Sharaf Khan Bidlïsï, Schere f Nameh ou Fastes de
la nation Kourde, trans. by F. Charmoy (St. Peters-

burg, 1868-75), b 266.

13 For its cotton see P. Belon, Les Observations de
plusieurs singularitez (Paris, 1588), fol. 57.

14 Abu ’1-Fidâ’, Takwïm al-Buldän, ed. T. Reinaud
and M. de Slane (Paris, 1840), p. 231, trans. by T.
Reinaud, II, 10.

15 Yäküt, op. cit., I, 437.

16 Ibid., II, 296. See Chap. IX, n. 35, and Chap. V,
n- 55-

17 Balädhuri, op. cit., text, p. 180, trans., I, 2S0.

Map 6 — Syria

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

141

but though he may have instituted some palace factories, there is no evidence of manufac-
ture there before al-Asmä‘i, quoted by Yäküt: “They have skill in manufacturing robes
(aksiya), and every man there, rich or poor, spins wool while their women weave it.” 18 Kaz-
wînï 19 noted: “The craft of its inhabitants is the manufacture of robes (aksiya), sacks, and
bags which are taken thence to all lands.”

Sarmin, according to Ibn Batüta,20 made a beautiful cotton cloth named Sarmlni after
it. Baalbek (Badabakk) stuffs were very famous in later times, but I have not found any
references to them before the Mameluke period. The Thousand and One Nights mentions
them in several places, and Ibn Batüta 21 remarked that “there are made in Baalbek the
garments named after it, consisting of ihräms (a cloth wrapper used in the pilgrimage), . . . .”
Under the events of the year 922 h. (1516 a.d.) Ibn Iyäs 22 recorded that the puppet caliph in
Egypt wore the Baghdad turban which has two ends, and a Baalbek robe (kabä’) with tiräz
borders of black silk (harir). The sultan himself wore a white Baalbek robe (kabä’) with
gold tiräz borders on broad black silk. Again, white Baalbek banners with the inscription
“God make the Sultan victorious” are mentioned. Thus, in the Mameluke period there was
probably a tiräz factory there.

Damascus (Dimashk), too, is but poorly documented. MakdisT enumerated among its
special products “ma‘sür and badlsl cloth and brocade.” 23 Idrïsï, however, had rather a sur-
prising fund of information:

The city of Damascus contains many excellent qualities and many types of manufactures and
various kinds of garments of silk (harir) such as khazz silk, precious and costly brocade of wonder-
ful manufacture, with no equal; this is taken thence to every country and province adjoining it, and
to those at a distance from it. The factories (masänh), for all of those are marvelous, and their
brocade resembles the finest brocade of Rüm (Byzantium), approximating to the garments of Das-
tuwä 24 and vying with the manufactures of Isfahan, surpassing the manufactures of the tiräz fac-
tories of Nishapur consisting of silken garments of one color (thiyäb al-harir al-musmata) and the
wonderful garments of Tinnis. Its (Damascus) tiräz factories contain all kinds of manufactures
of precious cloth.25

In Mameluke times, too, the city had a tiräz factory. Makrïzï 26 stated that in the days

18 Yakut, op. cit., II, 785.

19 Kazwïnï, el-Cazwini’s Kosmographie, ed. F. Wü-
stenfeld (Göttingen, 1846-48), II, 133. Cf. Sharaf Khan
Bidlïsî, op. cit., I, i, 267.

20 Ibn Battüta, Voyages d’ Ibn Batoutah, ed. and
trans. by C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti (Paris,
1853-59), h 146.

21 Ibid., p. 185.

22 W. H. Salmon, An Account of the Ottoman Con-
quest of Egypt (London, 1921), XXV, 14, 94, 101. This
translation is unreliable. See the review in the Bull.
School of Oriental Studies (London, 1921-23), p. 330.

See Ibn Ayäs, Badä’i ‘ al-Zuhür, Die Chronik des Ibn
Iyäs, ed. M. Sobernheim and P. Kahle, Bibliotheca Is-
lamica, V (Istanbul-Leipzig, 1931), VI, 39.

23 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 180. Perhaps for “Ba'lïsï”
one should read “Ba'labakki.” This is conjectural;
neither of these cloths is mentioned elsewhere.

24 For “Dastuwä,” it might be better to read “Tus-
tar.” See R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes
(2d ed.; Paris, 1927) under Dastuwâ’ï.

25 Idrïsï, op. cit., p. 14. This text requires several
minor alterations.

26 Makrïzï, Khitat, II, 227.

142

R. B. SERJEANT

of al-Näsir Muhammad ibn Kaläün, one of the great emirs, was given a robe of honor

(khil‘a) :

.... a kind called Tardwahsh,27 made in the dar al-tiräz which was in Alexandria, Cairo
(Misr), and Damascus. It was embroidered with bands (mudjawwakha djäkhät) which were in-
scribed with the titles of the sultan. It had bands djäkhät of Tardwahsh and bands of different
colors intermingled with gold-spangled linen (kasab mudhahhab), these bands being separated by
embroideries in color (nuküsh) and a tiräz border. This was made of kasab, but sometimes an im-
portant personage (among the officials) would have a tiräz border embroidered with gold (muzar-
kasha bi-dhahab) with squirrel (sindjäb) and beaver (kundus) fur upon it as mentioned above.
Under the cloak (kabä’) of Tardwahsh there was a cloak of muktarih 28 with hoods (tarha29) of
Alexandrine stuff, and a headdress (kallawta) of gold embroidery (zarkash) with spurs, a turban
(shäsh) as mentioned, and a waistbelt (hiyäsa30) of gold, sometimes with plaques (baikäriya) and
sometimes without them.

Tardwahsh seems to be a Persian compound name and is thought to be a cloth embroid-
ered with animals or scenes from the chase, of which there are numerous examples extant
today.

In the Hauran (Hawrän) district of Damascus lay Afnak, and Yäküt31 said: “Carpets
(busut) and fine robes (aksiya) are made in it which are named after it.”

MakdisI 32 found that Hüla was a source of cotton, and “from Kadas come munaiyar
(garments with a double warp.” 33 Tiberias had, as specialties, “pieces of carpeting (shikak
al-matärih), paper (käghid), and cloth (bazz).” 34 According to Idrisi: “In Tyre (Sür) white
garments of great beauty, of fine qualities and workmanship, expensive in price, are manu-
factured, and occasionally similar ones are manufactured in other parts of the surrounding
country.” 35

Näsir-i-Khusraw 36 said that artisans were numerous in Jerusalem, each trade having a
separate quarter, as at the present time. The Jewish travelers had also some matters of in-
terest to relate: “He (Rabbi Petachia) went to Jerusalem. The only Jew there is Rabbi
Abraham the dyer and he pays a heavy tax to the king to be permitted to remain.” 37 Benja-
min of Tudela38 found that “it contains a dyehouse for which the Jews pay a small rent an-
nually to the king (Baldwin III) on condition that, besides the Jews, no other dyers be
allowed in Jerusalem.” 39

27 Reading “Tardwahsh” for “Trzwahsh.”

28 The sense of this word is unknown to me.

29 Cf. R. Dozy, Dictionnaire détaillé des noms des
vêtements chez les Arabes (Amsterdam, 1845), where
this passage is cited and this garment described.

30 Cf. Ibid.

31 Yakut, op. cit., I, 316. The exact locality of A‘nak
is uncertain, so it could not be inserted in the map.

32 MakdisI, op. cit., p. 160.

33 Ibid., p. 180.

34 Ibid.

35 Idrisi, op. cit., p. 12.

36 Näsir-i-Khusrau, Safar-näma, C. Schefer, Relation
du Voyage de Nassiri Khosrau, Publications de 1’ école
des langues orientales vivantes (Paris, 1881), II, I,
trans. p. 67.

37 The Travels of Rabbi Petahyah, ed. and trans. by
A. Benisch, and W. F. Ainsworth (London, 1856), trans.
p. 61.

38 The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. and
trans. by M. N. Adler (London, 1907), p. 22.

39 Ibn Battüta, op. cit., II, 187, mentions a fardjiya
of green Kudsi at Makdashaw (Mogadischio in Italian
Somaliland).

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

143

The city of Ramie, later the Muslim capital of Palestine, was founded by the Umayyad
Sulaimän: “The first place he built was his palace, and then the house known as Där al-
Sabbâghïn (The house of the dyers’) in which he placed a cistern.” 40 This building later
passed into the hands of the Abbasids. It seems to have been some kind of royal factory,
and the word tiräz itself 41 could equally well apply to a dyehouse. No more information,
however, is forthcoming about this curious site though it is frequently mentioned by the his-
torians. Makdisi 42 reported that “Ramie is the storehouse (khizäna) of Misr, and the meet-
ing place of the two seas.” Its unequaled veils43 are also mentioned. Isaac Chelo44 who jour-
neyed through Palestine in the year 1334 a.d. said that in Ramie they had cotton factories.

The same Jewish traveler also remarked: “There is only one Jew living in this city
(Sarafand near Ramla) ; he is a dyer and has fine works.” 45 In Jaffa46 he noted cotton thread
and dyed stuffs.

The kazz silk of Ascalon (‘Askalän), according to Makdisi 47 was surpassingly good.
The textiles of Gaza (Ghazza) will be described in the chapter on Egypt, but, according to
M. Murray,48 there was silk in this area from pre-Muslim times.

The Jewish dyers of Palestine have been noticed in several cities, and Palestine was
famous for the growing of the indigo plant. Of the town of Zughar, Ibn Hawkal 49 said:
“There is some manufacture of indigo (nil) there, and there are workers who do not fall short
of those in Kabul, though the dye does not come up to the standard of Kabul.” Makdisi 50
mentioned indigo as an export of Jericho, Baisän, and Zughar (Sughar). Idris! 51 said: “The
principal crop of the Ghor (Ghawr [the Jordan valley]) is indigo,” and he specially men-
tioned the indigo of Jericho.

Cyprus (kubrus)

This island exported cloth to the Muslims, for Abu ’1-Käsim52 of Baghdad spoke of a
square carpet to sit upon, from Cyprus (tarräha Kubruslya). Ibn Hawkal 53 noted that
there is abundant silk (harlr) and linen (kattän) in Cyprus, while Makdisi 54 said that “the
Muslims derive advantages and profit from the large amount of goods, cloth (thiyäb), and

40 Balädhuri, op. cit., text, p. 143, trans., I, 220.

41 Makkarï, Analectes sur V histoire et la littérature
des arabes en Espagne, ed. R. Dozy and others (Leyden,
1855-61), I, 109.

42 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 36.

43 Makdisi, Ahsanu-t-taqäsim ji Ma‘rifat-l-A qälim
Known as al-Muqaddasi, trans. by G. S. A. Ranking and
R. F. Azoo (Calcutta, 1897-1910, incomplete). This
does not exist in De Goeje’s text.

44 E. N. Adler, Jewish Travellers (London, 1930),
p. 138.

45 Ibid., p. 138.

46 Ibid., p. 139.

47 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 174.

48 Personal information.

49 Ibn Hawkal, Opus Geographicum, ed. J. H.
Kramers (2d ed. ; Leyden, 1938-39), p. 184.

50 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 180.

51 Idrisi, op. cit., pp. 3 and 4.

52 Abu ’1-Mutahhar al-Azdi, Hikäyat Abi ’l-Kâsim,
ed. A. Mez (Heidelberg, 1902), p. 35. See also the pas-
sage in Die persische Nadelmalerei Susandschird (Leip-
zig, 1881), by J. von Karabacek, pp. 71-73, quoting many
European sources. For Tarräha, see R. Dozy, Supplé-
ment aux dictionnaires arabes.

53 Ibn Hawkal, ed. J. H. Kramers, op. cit., p. 204.

54 Makdisi, op. cit., p. 184.

144

R. B. SERJEANT

articles which are brought from it.” Cyprus madder was used for dyeing reed mats about
the end of the thirteenth century.55 Pedro de Teixeira56 mentioned various dye stuffs of
earth which he saw there, but such brief notices as these cannot do justice to the immense
importance of Cyprus in the commercial world of the Near East during the Muslim era.

{To be continued )

55 Ibn al-Ukhuwwa, Ma'älim al-Kurba, ed. R. Levy,
Gibb Mem. Ser. (London, 1938), n.s., XII, Nos. 284-5.

56 The Travels of P. Teixeira with His “Kings of
Harmuz” and Extracts from His “ Kings of Persia,” trans.
and annotated by W. F. Sinclair and D. Ferguson (Lon-
don, 1902), p. 137. He also mentioned exports of cotton
and silk (p. 134).

Supplementary Notes

Of Tripoli anterior to the Mongol invasion, Bur-
chard of Mount Sion (trans. by A. Stewart, Palestine
Pilgrims’ Text Soc. [London, 1S97], XII, 16) said: “It
is full of people, for therein dwell Greeks and Latins,
Armenians, Maronites, Nestorians, and many others.
Much work is done there in silk. I have heard for cer-
tain that therein there are weavers of silk and camlet
and other like stuffs.” Burchard went to the East in
1232 a.d., and his Description of the Holy Land is based
on his experiences there.

M. Minovi has drawn my attention to an important
article by D. N. Wilber and M. Minovi, “Notes on the
Rab‘-i Rashidi,” Bull. Amer. Instit. Iranian Art and
Archaeol., V (1938), III, especially pp. 249-52.

The authors of this article quote from the letters of
Rashid al-DIn the famous vizier of Ghäzän Khan, a col-
lection known as the Mukät ab ät-i- Rashidi in a manu-
script which belonged to the late E. G. Browne and is
now in the Cambridge University Library. Letter 51
refers to the Rashidi foundation or estate in Tabriz and
mentions that it included “factories for cloth-weaving
and paper-making, a dye-house, a mint,” which had been
constructed at the orders of the vizier. People from
every city and border have been removed to this quar-
ter. The craftsmen and inhabitants transferred from
other countries were established in separate streets. In
this letter, which was written to his son the governor of
the district of Kinnasrln, the vizier said: “The object
in writing this letter in short, is that you should send
forth fifty camlet (suf) weavers from Antäkiya (Anti-
och) and Süs and Tarsus, not by force and compulsion,
but by kindness and persuasion so that they may come
with carefree minds and voluntarily. Twenty more
camlet weavers you must ask the King Theophilus, son
of Michael from Kubrus (Cyprus) to send to Tabriz.”
The authors note that the kings of Cyprus at this time

(before 7x8 h. [1318 a.d.]) were not Byzantines but
the Lusignan dynasty, and Rashid al-DIn’s information
seems anachronistic referring to a much earlier period.
The authors add that the wools (suf) of Kubrus are
mentioned in a book attributed to Nizam al-Mulk known
as Kitäb-i-W asäyä in which Nizâm al-Mulk related that
Kubrus wool is sent to one of the Seljuk kings, his mas-
ters, among presents from Rum (Byzantium).

M. Minovi has also given me a reference — al-Sam‘änI,
Kitäb al-Ansäb facsimile ed., Intro, by D. S. Margoliouth,
Gibb Mem. Ser. (London, 1913), XX, 441: “KubrusI,
This is the adjective from Kubrus which is an island in
the Mediterranean to which are attributed KubrusI cloths
(thiyäb) which are linen.” (It is necessary to read
kattän for k ban).

In the latter half of the fifteenth century, Mahmüd
Karl of Yezd (Diwän-i-Albisa [Constantinople, 1303 h.])
mentioned in several places KubrusI wool (suf), and
once “Cyprus sixteen wool” (süf-i-sittata ‘ashari), the
name presumably being derived from some technical
process of manufacture, (pp. 61, 119, 15). A reference
to “sypres for neckerchiefs,” in Scotland in 1502 a.d.
is to be found in J. Bain, Calendar of Documents Re-
lating to Scotland 1 357-1 509 (Edinburgh, 1888), IV,
Addenda.

In Rotuli Scaccarii Regum Scotorum, Exchequer
Rolls of Scotland, 1264-1359 (Edinburgh, 1878), I,
380 under the “Accounts of the Clerk of the Kitchen &
Clerks of the Wardrobe rendered at Scone 10th to 12th
December 1331,” is mention of the following items “una
magna pecia panni cerici de Anteochia (Antioch) viij £.
Et in nouem paruis peciis panni de Anteochia vt supra,
xviij £ ij s . . . Et in nouemdecim peciis cindonis de Tripo
(Tripoli) xij £ xiij s, iiij d.” Cf. also p. 384 for a similar
entry. In the same volume under the “Accounts of the
Stewards of the House of the Earl of Carrick” for 1329
is the item: “Et per quandam peciam, panni de tarse
(Tarsus) rubei coloris.”

Another interesting source of information on the
Syrian trade in textiles, also of the post-Abbasid period,
is Ludolf von Suchem’s Description of the Holy Land,
Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Soc. (London, 1895) written
about 1350 a.d. Of Alexandretta and its district he said
(p. 46) : “Not far from Alexandria there is a village, all

ISLAMIC TEXTILES

145

of whose inhabitants are Saracen work people, who weave
mats wondrous well in divers fashions with most curious
skill.” Of Acre he said (pp. 60-61): “At this day about
sixty Saracen mercenaries dwell in Acre as a garrison
for the city and port and make a living out of silk and
birds.” Since the fall of Acre Christian women there
dressed in black. Of Damascus he said (p. 129), that
it is “rich in all manner of merchandise . . . abounding
in foods, spices, precious stones, silk, pearls, cloth-of-

gold, perfumes from India, Tartary, Egypt, Syria, and
places our side of the Mediterranean . . . and is incredibly
populous, being inhabited by divers trades of most cun-
ning and noble workmen, mechanics and merchants . . .
Each trade dwells by itself in a particular street, and
each workman according to his craft and power, makes
in front of his house a wondrous show of his work, as
cunningly, nobly and peculiarly wrought as he can . . .
But they sell everything very dear.”

TIMURID CARPETS

BY AMY BRIGGS

II. ARABESQUE AND FLOWER CARPETS*

B Y THE CLOSE OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, CARPETS WITH ARABESQUE AND FLOWER
designs had supplanted in popularity those based on geometric allover repeating patterns
which had flourished without serious rival during the earlier half of the century. The pre-
ponderance of the older type in the early fifteenth and midfifteenth century and the subsequent
change in taste are both illustrated in the continuous and consistent representation of
carpets in Timurid miniature painting.1 In the sixteenth century, the monopoly of elabo-
rate cursive designs, often featuring a stressed motif at the center of the field, is indicated
not only by their representation in early Safawid miniatures, but also by numbers of well-
known extant carpets. A study of arabesque and flower carpets in Timurid miniatures and
in a few very early sixteenth-century examples showing the influence of Bihzäd, indicates
that, although the final change in style was indeed sudden and complete, the lines of de-
velopment can yet be traced from earlier times.2 Possibly it will always remain somewhat
of a mystery that while many features of the intricate flower-arabesque style were achieved
in some fields of art during the Mongol period, carpet designs were not finally harmonized
with the contemporary mode until the late fifteenth century

With the Timurid predilection for delicacy and refinement, their inherent love for gar-
dens with flowers, and their genius in handling minute detail it was inevitable that Persia
should develop, in an art as important to their living as was the weaving of carpets, design
forms suitable and expressive of national tastes. This was most certainly achieved during
the life time of Bihzäd, if not directly under his influence. The finest flower and arabesque
carpets illustrated in Timurid paintings are all in miniatures by Bihzäd, his pupils, or those
closely connected with his school.

Two styles could hardly be more at variance than those shown in early and late Timurid

* Thanks are due John E. Lodge, late director, Miss
G. D. Guest, and Mr. A. G. Wenley, present director,
of the Freer Gallery, for their continued help and very
valuable and much appreciated advice, to Mr. B. Gray,
of the British Museum, for a helpful bibliographical ref-
erence, and to Mrs. Martha Davidson for assistance with
the text.

1 A. Briggs, “Timurid Carpets, I. Geometric Carpets,”
Ars Islamica, VII (1940), 20-54 (hereinafter referred to
as “Tim. Carp.,” I).

1 should like to make the following two corrections in
this first section: p. 32, 1. 2, “but who” should be in-
serted after the parenthesis; p. 34, 1. 3, “six-sided”
instead of “five-sided.”

2 A. U. Pope described an arabesque rug represented
in the fourteenth-century Demotte Shah Namah. He also
referred to the patterns of carpets represented in the

Shah Namah of the Royal Asiatic Society, about T440
(“Tim. Carp.,” I, Fig. 54), as being predominantly floral
(“The Art of Carpet Making,” A Survey of Persian Art,
[London and New York, 1939], III, 2282). For other
early carpets with cursive designs, see “Tim. Carp.,” I,
Appendix 3d, nb, 12a, 18, 26c.

In this study only floor coverings will be considered.
Canopies and tent covers offer rich material but though
many canopies show designs comparable to those of
floor carpets, the development seems to be not entirely
analogous. Further study and separate treatment seem
advisable.

3 “Tim. Carp.,” I, 40-41. Might this phenomenon per-
haps be somewhat analogous to the plight of domestic
architecture today, where the grip of the so-called “tra-
ditional” patterns prevents architectural design from
keeping pace with advances in other fields?

TIMURID CARPETS

147

carpets.4 There are, however, carry-overs from the old geometric manner into the new cursive,
more naturalistic one, with its fluidity, lively arabesques, and joyous flowers. Though the
primary importance of the knot, so indispensable to the early Timurid designer, be lost for-
ever, it is still employed sometimes for borders and occasionally as a decorative mo-
tif in the arabesque design, as in Figure 15. Two of the most imposing arabesque
rugs have Kufic borders, though their intricate knot forms are vastly different from those of
the conventional Kufic carpet border (Figs. io} 11 ). One arabesque carpet (Fig. 8 ) uses
the old Kufic as the main border with a secondary border between field and main border
showing a flowery undulating stem. Several Timurid and even a few early sixteenth-
century carpets represented have cursive designs in the field and a very simple old-style Kufic

border. It never seems quite harmonious, and though it is used on a fine flower carpet illus-
trated in the exquisite Nizami manuscript dated 1524-25 in the Metropolitan Museum in
New York,5 most such carpets are in miniatures less distinguished or possibly of provincial
origin. A very elaborate flower carpet by Bihzäd has a border of knots like those in Fig-
ures 10 and 11, alternating with arabesques.6

The greatest gift of the old style to the new is a respect for, or perhaps an unconscious
practice of, adherence to geometry as the basis of design and the controlling force governing
both space divisions and surface decoration. This practice goes deep into the roots of Persian
design, and its importance cannot be exaggerated. In a style so delicate and rich, the danger

4 Ibid., Figs. 23, 41.

s Ibid., Fig. 63.

6 Ibid., Appendix 41b.

148

AMY BRIGGS

of overprettiness is always close. This becomes very apparent in Safawid art, the period from
which date the earliest and most cherished Persian carpets. It is my opinion that, as fine as
these masterpieces of carpet weaving are, their designs are less virile and slightly decadent
when compared with the best of the Timurid period. The unchallenged beauty of the Safawid
carpets is due to the mastery of their weavers in handling designs perfected during the period
of Bihzäd.

In Bihzäd’s cursive rug designs appears a sound and clear relationship to a basic geometric
plan and often to an actual repeating pattern. Something of the method and skill employed
becomes evident in the process of reconstructing the carpets depicted in his miniatures. The
task is somewhat different and more complicated than that involved in the reconstruction of a
repeating pattern where only the unit and its relation to edges and corner of the field must be
determined. Yet in the finest of Timurid carpets, there is an astonishing accuracy in the indi-
cation of the whole design, interrupted though it be by objects and figures. In computing the
center of the leftmost horizontal ellipse in Figure 13, a measurement taken on the photograph
from the left end of the carpet was off less than one sixty-fourth of an inch when compared
with one taken from the right end. Yet it seems likely that this precision is due to accuracy of
eye and hand combined with perfect knowledge of the pattern rather than to minute measur-
ing, because the distortion of the pattern to suit the requirements of the new designs is frequent.
The most interesting example is in Figure 10, in which the whole pattern in certain areas is
distorted to make possible the small complete circles at the edges, rather than the half circles
that would be there if the geometric plan of the repeat had been followed exactly (Fig. 7). The
resulting lack of symmetry is scarcely perceptible. The departure from strict geometry in this
instance, unlike that found in poor, weak designing, only emphasizes the debt to geometry of
these skillful Timurid designers. In fact, lack of consistency or accuracy in this respect is an
indication that the painter of the miniature was not entirely cognizant of carpet designs and
that, therefore, the authenticity of the carpet represented in his miniature is open to question.7

Certain trends distinguish all types of these arabesque and flower carpets from those with
geometric repeating patterns. On the whole, the space divisions are larger than those in the
geometric rugs, where the effect was most often that of a rather small allover repeat. With
this enlargement of the unit, is found the inclination to emphasize the central motif, thus re-
moving the design still further from the appearance of a repeating pattern. It should be em-
phasized, however, that the preference of Islamic art for endless repetition is never entirely
abandoned. The relation of the design to an infinitely repeating system is still fundamental,
though the tendency is to make the relationship less and less obvious, until, in the plans of
some Timurid and many later carpets, it seems finally to have disappeared.

A very important difference is one of rhythm and movement. Though a livelier tempo
is introduced into several fine carpets of the geometric group,8 the effect, for the most part, is

7 This seems to apply to a multiple medallion carpet 8 Ibid., Figs. 49, 54, 58, 61.

in a very beautiful miniature formerly attributed to
Bihzäd, ibid., Appendix 37b.

TIMURID CARPETS

149

AFTER MARTIN

Fig. 2

AFTER PAGE, IN THE FREER GALLERY

Fig. 3

AFTER MORITZ

Fig. 4

Fig. s

AFTER MARTIN

AFTER PAGE IN THE FREER GALLERY

Fig. 6

Figs. 2-6 — Line Schemes of Designs Found in Early Islamic Book Illumination

ISO

AMY BRIGGS

static and sometimes monotonous. The arabesque and flower carpets are all characterized by
a movement full of life and freedom. The balance is contained and firm, but is one of rhythms
rather than of exact symmetry of forms. The treatment of the corners of the field in Figure n
is an example, and several instances occur in the arabesques of Figure 13. The curves are
ample and rounding, never squeezed nor pinched like the spiral stems of some later floral
carpets.

A quality in Timurid geometric carpets contributing to both richness and strength of
design in the arabesque and flower carpets is the multiple functioning of the forms — a practice
of Islamic artists of making one line serve several purposes at the same time. As in the Sa-
mar ra stucco designs,9 the line that limits one area defines another adjoining one. This often
explains the very shapes of motifs distinguishing Persian carpets: cartouches for example, are
interstices between other forms. This is more evident in Timurid carpets (Figs. 8, 11-13 ) than
in later ones in which the cartouches thus evolved seem to function as independent motifs.
This quality applies not only to the delineation of space divisions but also to the decoration
itself. One never has the feeling, frequently inspired by less distinguished carpets, that into
empty spaces forms have been hopefully placed until the spaces are filled. In Timurid carpets
arabesque leaves and flower stems, when not emphasizing contours already established, create
pleasing spaces or new compartments.

Perhaps the greatest contrast between the old and new styles is seen in the surface deco-
ration. With the exception of the few knot forms mentioned above, arabesque and flower
forms, which were rarities in the decoration of the geometric carpets, are used exclusively in
the new cursive designs. The earliest are entirely arabesque (Fig. 10 ) ; then flowers are intro-
duced into the arabesque designs (Fig. 13) and finally the arabesques are subordinated to the
flowers (Fig. 16 ).

These flowers are spoken of as naturalistic, as indeed they are when compared with the
very conventional flower forms of the geometric carpets. Yet they too are stylized, and their
growth is controlled by laws as rigid as those which govern the arabesques. The motifs them-
selves are few in number and seem to be the result of a fusion of Chinese, Iranian, and Islamic
forms. Often the same flowers which ornament the carpet are found elsewhere in the minia-
ture, growing on ground or trees, or as motifs of the architectural decoration. That the vocabu-
lary was already complete in the Mongol period is suggested by the illumination of a Koran
page dated 728 h. (1327 a.d.).10 Half a very ruglike composite medallion is ornamented
with several of the forms repeated again and again in the the late Timurid carpets, two-lobed
bud, trifoliate leaf, pointed leaflet, and more rare in the carpets, a fine Chinese peony. An ex-
cellent representation of these exquisite flower and leaf forms is seen on the border of a camel
cover illustrated in Bihzäd’s painting of the “Dromedary and his Keeper,” in the Freer Gal-
lery, Washington, D.C. (Fig. i).11 At the center of the top border, is a flower formed by four

9 E. Herzfeld, Der Wandschmuck der Bauten von Survey of Persian Art (London and New York, 1938-

Samarra und seine Ornamentik (Berlin, 1923). 39), V, PL 939B.

10 R. Ettinghausen, “Manuscript Illumination,” A 11 No. 37.22. “Tim. Carp.,” I, Appendix 53.

TIMURID CARPETS

I5I

pointed petals with dainty lobed petals between them. Almost exactly the same flower occurs
in one of Bihzäd’s geometric carpets,12 as well as in the interstices of many other geometric
carpets. This form is related to that of the full-blown little blossoms used in the corner and
alternating with the five-petaled flowers in this and in many other floral borders.

In Timurid carpets, the decoration is contained in one area or compartment. Though the
rhythmic movement of a stem may be picked up and continued in another space, as in Figure
8, the practice of running a stem from one compartment into another, or from ground into
medallion, seems not to have developed till the sixteenth century.13 Also the two systems of
decoration, arabesque and flower, are always kept distinct. In earlier types, when flowers are
introduced, they are restricted to certain compartments. In later types, where flowers and
arabesques intertwine in the same area, the two species are never mixed nor confused.

The classification of arabesque and flower carpets is complicated by the ingenuity and
fresh invention used by these artists in combining design forms. It is possible to divide them
roughly into four groups: (1) carpets which have fields divided into compartments, usually
interpenetrating, (2) carpets which have fields decorated with scroll stems, (3) medallion car-
pets, and (4) prayer carpets. The compartment group which tends to be rather definitely re-
lated to repeating patterns, will be analyzed here.

I. COMPARTMENT CARPETS

Unlike the more or less stereotype geometric carpets in many Timurid miniatures, the
cursive rugs, far fewer, show designs rich with invention. The impact of a fresh new style full
of vitality, richness, and grace, was very clearly felt in a few splendid carpets which, though
using the old geometric plans, had arabesque and floral motifs.14 The new mode was more ade-
quately expressed, however, in the creation of new types, some of which are naturally not rep-
resented in Timurid miniatures in the form familiarized in later carpets because they had not
yet been repeated often enough to have become crystallized. Such a design is the compartment
pattern based on overlapping and interpenetrating areas. More than all other Timurid types
of carpets it seems to have been especially peculiar to the later Timurid period and to the
influence of Bihzäd. Though it has descendants among extant carpets, as will be noted below,
the forms have changed considerably and show the influences of other patterns, too. Actual
carpets such as are illustrated in Figures 8, n-13 must have been very handsome, and one re-
grets that the design was not carried over more directly into the period that produced carpets
which have survived.

The type of compartment design used in Figures 8, 10-13, reached the peak

12 Ibid., Fig. 24.

13 In book illumination, however, an example occurs
as early as 1313, in a Koran dated 713 h. An arabesque
stem continues through two areas of the compartment
design (Ettinghausen, op. cit., PI. 934).

14 “Tim. Carp.,” I, Figs. 24, 25, 49, 53, 54, 61. It
seems incredible that Figure 53, a large carpet, or the

other ornament represented in the miniature of a “Court
Scene” in the Shah Namah of Sultan Ali Mizra in the
Turkish and Islamic Museum, Istanbul, could have been
done as early as 1400, the date suggested by E. Schroeder
on the basis of the costumes represented (“Ahmed Musa
and Shams al-Din: A Review of Fourteenth-Century
Painting,” Ars Islamica, VI [1939], 113-42).

152

AMY BRIGGS

Fig. 7 — Diagram of Repeating Scheme for Fig. io

TIMURID CARPETS

153

of its development in Timurid and Safawid book illumination and in Timurid carpet designs.
These rather complicated schemes are evolved by laying out a geometric plan of overlapping
circular forms of many sizes around certain pivotal points within a rectangle. The arrange-
ment within the rectangle is usually abstracted or adapted from an allover repeating pattern,
but is never more than one unit wide. The forms join each other and the edges by means of
small circles or semicircles. The substructure completed, certain lines are erased, thus cre-
ating new forms, such as quatrefoils and cartouches.15 When the space has been divided into
compartments by these compass-made curves, the plan is then developed by choosing certain
areas to be filled in with solid tones. This sort of play with curves is seen in several early
Islamic illuminated designs {Figs. 2-4). 16 Figures 2 and 3 are so simple that the process of
construction is easily followed. Figure 4 is much more complicated, but is closer in effect to
the Timurid carpets. All show the compartments bound by interlacing bands, a practice main-
tained for centuries. The important step of eradicating some of the structural lines to form
new areas of unusual shape is illustrated in two thirteenth-century examples of book illumina-
tion, Figure 5 from a Mameluke Koran page,17 and Figure 6 from a beautiful page in the Freex
Gallery, which is far more ruglike in character.18 Several tricks of composition in Timurid
compartment carpets are featured in the latter, as for example, the half circles coming from
the edge of the field and overlapping at the center, where a new shape is created, in this in-
stance, a large four-pointed star. A construction similar to the center of this design is found in
Figure 12 in the straight-sided areas at the edges of the field.

Two very noteworthy carpets with overlapping or interpenetrating compartments are rep-
resented in Figures 10 and 11 from the Büstän illustrated by Bihzäd, in the collection of the
National Egyptian Library at Cairo.19 In spite of the similarities in the construction of the
fields and the use of all but identical borders, Figure 11 is far more advanced in style than is
Figure 10. Except for the distortion described above and the slight adjustments at the ends of
the field, Figure 10 is a section of Figure 7, an allover repeating pattern. Figure 11 is also
capable of repetition, but in adapting the pattern to a carpet design many more changes have
been made, with the result that it gives a definite impression of having been created as a unit
terminating within the rectangle rather than for infinite repetition. Almost three entire units
of the repeat have been used in Figure 10, whereas in Figure 11, one unit fills almost the en-
tire center field, with less than half of adjoining units at the ends.20 Thus, the center of this
carpet is different from, and more important than, the ends. Other new features are the use of
elliptical forms and the introduction of flowers into the arabesque design. Both carpets are

15 E. H. Hankin has shown how this principle was
used in the creation of very complicated arabesque orna-
ment: “The Drawing of Geometric Patterns in Saracenic
Art,” Arch. Surv. India, XV (1925).

16 Fig. 2, F. R. Martin, The Miniature Painting and
Painters of Persia, India, and Turkey (London, 1912),
II, PI. 235; Fig. 3, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington,
D.C., No. 34.26; Fig. 4, B. Moritz, Arabic Palaeography
(Cairo, 1905), PI. XII.

17 Martin, op. cit., PI. 237.

18 Freer Qallery, No. 29.70. Interest is heightened in
Figures 5 and 6 by the doubling of the basic circles. The
Mongol design mentioned in note 13 shows this same
feature.

19 “Tim. Carp.,” I, Appendix 42a and c.

20 The division between the units is vertically through
the small circles in the centers of the two ellipses.

154

AMY BRIGGS

splendid examples of Islamic design. In Figure io, the stability achieved at the centers of the
three large quatrefoils by placing the knots and the straight arabesque leaves along the solid
structural square, as well as the balanced symmetry of the crossed arabesque, gives the effect
of three quiet islands in a sea of swirling movement. In Figure n, the spiral arabesque, an
endless stem which ornaments the circles at the centers of the ellipses, is a constant source of
surprise and delight. Unlike the quasi-elliptical forms of some of these compartment designs
(Figs. i2, ij), the ellipses of Figure n are true ellipses with the arabesque decoration func-
tionally related to the foci (indicated by dots on the right side of the drawing).

Somewhere between these two carpets would come, in line of development, Figure 8 from
a miniature attributed to Käsim Ali, in a Mir ‘Alî-Shïr Nawâ’ï manuscript in the Bodleian Li-
brary at Oxford. Because of the simple Kufic border, Pope has referred to this design as illus-
trative of the struggle between the old and new styles.21 An attempt at harmonizing the
border and field is seen in the knot placed at the center of the arabesque design in the field.
Simpler than Figure ii, it is composed of two complete units of the repeat, finishing at each
end with half a vertical ellipse, the only whole one being reserved for the center. Some of the
arabesques seem to carry from one compartment into another, suggestive of a future develop-
ment already noted.

A very strong arabesque carpet of compartment type (Fig. 12 ) is illustrated in a minia-
ture of “Iskandar with the Seven Sages,” in the famed Nizami manuscript dated 1494-95 in
the British Museum.22 Unfortunately, so much of the center and ends are covered that the
reconstruction must remain far from complete. All the pecularities of construction are ex-
plained, however, by two designs found in Safawid book illumination. Except for the small
circles at the edges of the field, the suggested plan indicated at the left top of Figure 12 is pre-
cisely that of the later of these two designs.23 The differentiation of the center is attained by
contracting the circular motif and substituting the slightly pointed arch for the circles. The
predominant colors are dark lapis, vermilion, and ivory — strong colors for the sturdy arabesque
design.24

The climax of this group is reached in Figure 13, a rug represented in Figure 14, a
miniature from a Nizami manuscript in the British Museum, which, though dated 846 h.
(1442 a.d.), contains miniatures from the school of Bihzäd, probably painted about 1493.25
The reconstruction of the very ends of the field may be open to question, since they are not
actually visible. But as at least their approximate nature is indicated, it is hoped that the ad-

21 Op. cit., p. 2282. “Tim. Carp.,” I, Appendix 39a.

22 Ibid., Appendix 44h.

23 (1) Opening pages of an Anthology dated 929 h.
(1523 a.d.), Freer Gall., No. 32.46-47; published by
Ettinghausen, op. cit., PI. 948. (2) Nizami MS, 1539-43,
British Museum, ibid., PI. 949. Where the carpet has
circles at the edges, the illuminated examples have semi-
circles protruding from the ellipses, a second instance of
Bihzäd’s preference for terminating his carpet fields with
whole rather than half circles. If the central panel of

the suggested plan is correct, it is obtained by omitting
the connecting half circles, thus joining the cartouches to
form one area exactly as in Figure 13.

24 The list of colors is based on British Museum post
card, C. 94.

25 “Tim. Carp.,” I, Appendix 54e. The date Radjab
898 h. (1493 a.d.), was discovered by Ettinghausen on
one of the other miniatures. See “Bihzäd,” Encycl. Islam
Suppl. (Leiden-London, 1938), p. 39 (MS, No. A.4).

TIMÜRID CARPETS

155

Fig. 8 — Plan of a Carpet in a Miniature Attributed to Kâsim Ali

AMY BRIGGS

156

vantage of seeing the strength and beauty of this splendid design in its entirety may compen-
sate for the possible lack of complete authenticity.

An entirely different tendency is illustrated in Figures 15 and 16, two small carpets from
late Timurid miniatures both attributed to Bihzäd.26 Much less formal, these rugs aim at
charm and grace rather than at sumptuous strength. It is unfortunate that so little is discern-
ible of their plans, which are apparently very simple. It is evident that the designer in
dividing his field has used shapes and forms developed in the compartment style of patterning.
In Figure 16, there is no overlapping or interpenetration unless one assumes a substructure
which has been completely eradicated leaving only the central panel and its attached quatre-
foils. Though these shapes, defined and joined by interlacing bands, are obviously borrowed from
larger compartment carpets, the effect is rather that of a medallion carpet.

The lobed tabular panel and attached quatrefoils of Figure 16 comprise the border motif
of a rather sketchily indicated rug in a Shah Namah manuscript, dated 902 h. (1496 a.d.), in
the State Library at Munich.27 Here, at the end of the fifteenth century, there is evidence of
the use of this motif for a carpet border, and it is as border decoration that this Timurid de-
sign type is most directly seen in extant carpets. The rows of tabular compartments and roun-
dels or quatrefoils are especially familiar in many types of carpets, but interpenetrating
cartouches with intermediary small circles, very close to the field designs of Timurid compart-
ment carpets, are seen in the border of a sixteenth-century tree carpet from northwest Persia,
in the possession of D. K. Kelekian.28

Compartments somewhat similar to those of this Timurid group decorate the fields of
several well-known Safawid carpets which seem at first glance more closely related than they
actually are. A silk carpet in the Rockefeller collection 29 is fairly close in feeling and propor-
tions to Timurid compartment rugs and has a stressed center, a small lobed roundel. Two
others, the Clam-Gallas woolen carpet 30 and the Havemeyer carpet in the Metropolitan Mu-
seum,31 are repeating patterns with no emphasis given to the center.

Some of the differences between these carpets and their Timurid predecessors were
already indicated in designs used in early Safawid manuscripts. The elaboration of forms by
substituting lobed forms matching the quatrefoils for simple curves is seen in a compartment
rug represented in a miniature in the Nizami manuscript, dated 1524-25, in the Metropolitan

26 Figure 15, “Tim. Carp.,” I, Appendix 51; Figure
16, R. Ettinghausen, “Six Thousand Years of Persian
Art, 1940,” Ars Islamica, VII (1940), 106-18, Fig. 6.

27 “Tim. Carp.,” I, Appendix 46a. A carpet illustrated
in a miniature of ca. 1500, Freer Gallery No. 23.6, shows
a compartment border of tabular rectangles with semi-
circles protruding from the centers of ends and sides.

28 Ettinghausen, op. cit., Fig. 2. As Pope pointed out
(op. cit., p. 2317), Bihzäd designed very beautiful bor-
ders of the tabula ansata type. He does not, however,
appear to have favored them for carpets. Several fine
examples occur in the architectural decoration repre-

sented in the Cairo Büstän (E. Kühnei, “History of
Miniature Painting and Drawing,” A Survey of Persian
Art [London and New York, 1938-39], V, Pis. 886-87).
Aga-Oglu said that the pattern had a long history and was
well established in book covers by 840 h. (1436 a.d.)
( Persian Bookbindings of the Fifteenth Century [Ann
Arbor, 1935], Pb XV).

29 Sarre and Trenkwald, Alt-Orientalische Teppiche
(Vienna, 1926-29), II, PI. 44.

20 Pope, op. cit., PI. 1143.

21 Ibid., PI. 1223.

TIMURID CARPETS

157

Museum,32 and in a midsixteenth-century illuminated design reproduced by Martin.33 Another
design from the first quarter of the sixteenth century, in a manuscript in the Freer Gallery,34
shows these elaborated forms and is another instance of the mingling of the compartment and
medallion patterns. A second difference, the elongation or stiffening of the ample curves of
the Timurid designs, is illustrated in the illumination of a manuscript dated 1524 35 and also
in the midsixteenth-century example just mentioned.

A feature of the repeat in the Havemeyer carpet and in a small Turkish velvet carpet in
the Corcoran Gallery (Fig. q) 36 is a lobed tablet-like compartment. Though somewhat similar
shapes were sometimes used for the centers of Timurid compartment carpets (Fig. 16 ), they

Fig. 9 — Plan of Field, Turkish Velvet Carpet, Late Sixteenth Century
Washington, Corcoran Gallery

were not part of the allover scheme. Similar motifs occur in two designs only very slightly
later than the Timurid rugs, an inscribed silk in the collection of Mrs. William H. Moore,37
and in a late fifteenth- or early sixteenth-century book binding in the National Museum at

32 Kiihnel, op. cit., PI. 893A,

33 Martin, op. cit., PI. 245.

34 No. 37.35.

35 Martin, op. cit., PI. 244.

36 No. 2290.

37 P. Ackerman, “The Textile Arts,” A Survey of Per-
sian Art (New York and London, 1938-39), VI, PI.
1040.

158

AMY BRIGGS

Teheran.38 Both are allover repeating patterns resembling the Safawid far more than the Ti-
murid carpets. One is, therefore, tempted to suppose that these extant carpets represent com-
partment types different from those featured in the carpets painted in Timurid miniatures.
This supposition is strengthened by another very important quality of the later designs which
is not characteristic of the Timurid group, namely, the reciprocal nature of the repeat, which,
in the Rockefeller, Clam-Gallas, Corcoran, and other examples, consists of lobed forms point-
ing alternately up and down. Though this is not seen in any of the Timurid carpets with inter-
penetrating compartments, it is related to a design form with a long history, as is shown by the
use of such a reciprocal pattern among the thirteenth-century Seljuk stone reliefs analyzed
extensively by Riefstahl.39 It seems to be true then that the elaborate and beautiful compart-
ment carpets represented in late Timurid miniatures belong to a style of carpet designing
limited definitely to the period of Bihzäd, though distant echoes permeate the borders and
field of later rug designs.

(To be continued )

38 E. Gratzl, “Book Covers,” A Survey of Persian Art
(London and New York, 1938-39), V, PI. 966A.

39 “Primitive Rugs of the ‘Konya’ Type,” Art. Bull.,
XIII (1939), 177-220. He pointed out a relation be-
tween one relief (Fig. 19) and the Clam-Gallas rug (p.

201). Another design related to this carpet is mentioned
by Pope (op. cit., p. 2318, n. 1), a carpet represented in
a miniature dated 946 h. (1539 a.d.), a very helpful hint
as to the dating of this compartment type.

Fig. io — Reconstruction of Carpet in a Miniature by Bihzäd

Fig. ii — Reconstruction of Carpet in a Miniature by Bihzäd

pIG J 2 — Partial Reconstruction of Carpet in a Miniature Attributed to Bihzäd

Fig. 13 — Reconstruction of Carpet in a Miniature
by Bihzäd

Fig. 14— Miniature from a Nizâmï MS, ca. 1493- London, British Museum

Fig. 15 — In a Miniature by Bihzäd

Fig. 16 — In a Miniature Probably by Bihzäd, Partly Finished by a Pupil
Figs. 15-16 — Partial Reconstructions of Carpets

THE LAWFULNESS OF PAINTING IN EARLY ISLAM *
BY K. A. C. CRESWELL

Ihe paintings of kusair ‘amra raise, in an imperative fashion, the question of
the lawfulness or otherwise of painting in Islam. Even at the present day the belief is very
widely held that all forms of painting are forbidden by explicit passages in the Koran, but

* Bibliography : G. B. Toderini , Letteratura turchesca
(Venezia, 1787), III, 45-74; idem, De la Littérature des
Turcs (Paris, 1789), III, 47-78; idem, Literatur der
Türken (Königsberg, 1790), II, 193-209. H. Lavoix,
“Les Peintures musulmans,” Revue de l’Orient, de
l’Algérie, et des colonies, n.s., IX (1859), 353— 69. H.
Montaut, “De la Représentation des figures animées chez
les musulmans,” Mém. de l’inst. égyptien, I (1862),
61-65. F. Pharaon, “La Peinture et la sculpture chez
les musulmans,” Mém. de l’inst. égyptien, I (1862),
I (1869), 442-46. L. Viardot, “Quelques notes sur la
peinture et la sculpture chez les musulmans,” Gazette
des beaux-arts, I (1869), 556-59. H. Lavoix, “Les
Arts musulmans,” Gazette des beaux-arts, XII (1875),
97—1 13, 312-21, and 423-37. S. Lane-Poole, “Moham-
mad’s Condemnation of Pictures,” Academy, VIII
(1875), 233 an<3 250-51; idem, [Review of Les Arts
Musulmans: Les Peintures arabes, by H. Lavoix], ibid.,
X (1876), 364. C. A. C. Barbier de Meynard [Re-
view of Les Peintures arabes ], Revue critique d’hist. et
de litt., n.s., I (1876), 333-35. J. Karabacek, “Über das
angebliche Bilderverbot des Islam,” Kunst und Gewerbe,
X (1876), 281-83, 289-91, 297-99, 307-8, 315-17, and
332-33. M. de Nahuys, “Les Images chez les Arabes,”
Annales de l’acad. d’archéol. de Belgique, X LVIII (1895),
229-34. V. Chauvin, “La Défense des images chez les
musulmans,” Annales de l’acad. d’archéol. de Belgique,
XLIX (1896) 403-30. J. von Karabacek. “Über die
Auffindung eines Chalifenschlosses in der nordarabischen
Wüste,” Almanach der K. Akad. der Wissensch., LII
(1902), 356-57. Th. W. Juynboll, Handleiding tot de
Kennis van Mohammedaansche Wet (Leiden, 1903), pp.
157-58. Muhammad ‘Abduh, “al-Suwar wa’l-Tamâthil
wa-Fawä’iduha wa-Hukmuha,” al-Manär, VIII (1904),
35, reprinted by Muhammad Rashid Rida’, Ta'rikh Mu-
hammad ‘Abduh, II (1925), 499-501. M. van Berchem,
“L’Art musulman au Musée de Tlemcen,” Journ. des
savants, n.s. IV (1906), 418. C. Snouck Hurgronje,
“Kusejr ‘Amra und das Bilderverbot,” Zeitschr. d.
deutsch, morgenl. Gesellsch. ( =Z.D.M.G .), LXI (1907),
186-91; reprinted in his Verspreide Geschäften (Bonn
und Leipzig, 1923), II, 449-56. L. Bréhier, “Les
Origines de l’art musulman,” Revue des idées, VII

(1910), 196-98. M. van Berchem, “Nouvelles et corre-
spondance,” Journ. des savants, n.s., VII (1909), 134-35;
idem, “Aux Pays de Moab et d’Edom,” ibid., pp. 370-72.
J. Horovitz, “Die Beschreibung eines Gemäldes bei Mu-
tanabbi,” Der Islam, I (19x0), 385-88. T. W. Juynboll,
Handbuch des islamischen Gesetzes (Leiden, 1910), pp.
166-67. Abd al-Aziz Shawish, “al-Taswir wa-Ittikhadd
al-Suwar,” al-Hindaya, II (1911), 487-91. C. H. Becker,
“Christliche Polemik und islamische Dogmenbildung,”
Zeitschr. f. Assyriol., XXVI (1911), 191-95, reprinted
in his Islamstudien (Leipzig, 1924), I, 445-48. M. van
Berchem, “Arabische Inschriften,” in F. Sarre and E.
Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-
Gebiet (Berlin, 1911), I, 36-38 (apropos of the Talisman
Gate at Baghdad). M. H. Bulley, Ancient and Medieval
Art (New York, 1914), pp. 265-66. H. Lammens,
“L’Attitude de l’Islam primitif en face des arts figurés,”
Journ. asiatique, lime série, VI (1915), 239-79. A.
Enani, “Beurteilung der Bilderfrage im Islam nach der
Ansicht eines Muslim,” Mitteil, des Seminars für orien-
talische Sprachen zu Berlin, XXII (1919), II Abt., 1-40.
I. Goldziher, “Zxim islamischen Bilderverbot,” Z.D.M.G.,
LXXIV (1920), 288. L. Massignon, “Les Méthodes de
réalisation artistique des peuples de l’Islam,” Syria, II
(1921), 47-53. A. J. Wensinck, “The Second Command-
ment,” Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akad. van Weten-
schappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Deel LIX (1925), Ser. A,
No. 6. E. Herzfeld, Die Malereien von Samarra (Berlin,
1927), pp. 1-3. G. Migeon, Manuel d’art musulman (2d
ed. ; Paris, 1927), I, 101-3. T. W. Arnold, Painting in
Islam (Oxford, 1928), pp. 1-40. Aly Bahgat and F.
Massouî, La Céramique musulmane de l’Egypte (Cairo,
1930), pp. 38-39. Ahmed Mousa, Zur Geschichte der
islamischen Buchmalerei in Aegypten (Cairo, 1931), pp.
15-16. G. Wiet, “Le Décor des édifices — L’Interdiction
des images,” in L. Hautecoeur and G. Wiet, Les Mos-
quées du Caire (Paris, 1932), I, 167-83. A. J. Wensinck,
“Süra,” Encycl. Isläm (Leyden-London, 1934), IV, 561-
63. G. Marçais, “La Question des images dans l’art
musulman,” Byzantion, VII (1933), 161-83. C. J. Lamm,
“The Spirit of Moslem Art,” Bidl. Faculty of Letters,
Egyptian Univ., Ill (1935), 3-5. Zakï M. Hasan, in his
xxotes to Ahmed Taymur Pasha, Painting, Sculpture and

i6o

K. A. C. CRESWELL

this is a popular error for no such passages exist, as orientalists have frequently pointed out.1

Azraki (d. 858 a.d.), author of the earliest extant history of Mecca, tells that Muham-
mad, after his triumphal entry into that city in Ramadan 8 (December, 629-January, 630) went
inside the Kaaba and ordered the pictures in it to be obliterated, but put his hand over a pic-
ture of Mary with Jesus seated on her lap, and said: “Rub out all the pictures except these
under my hands”; and Azraki goes on to say that this picture remained until the Kaaba was
destroyed in 63 h.2

Sa£d ibn Abi Wakkäs and his Arabs at the capture of al-Madä’in, or Ctesiphon, used
the great iwän for the Friday prayer and were not disturbed by the paintings decorating it,
one of which represented the siege of Antioch by Khusrau Anüshirwän (538 a.d.).3 Zaki
Hasan tries to explain away this fact partly by the lack of time, the troops being so anxious
to give thanks for their great victory that they did not stop to obliterate them, and partly by
saying that “victorious armies do not always act according to religious principles.”4 But he
has to admit that these paintings were allowed to remain for two and a half centuries at
least, for they were seen by al-Buhturi, who died in 897 a.d.s An early example of Muslim
painting may be mentioned; Yäküt says that the palace of al-Baidä’ at Basra, built by
‘XJbaid Allah the son of Ziyäd ibn Abihi, was decorated with wall paintings.6 Then, again, the
rigid Caliph Omar used a censer with human figures on it, which he had brought from Syria,
to perfume the mosque of Medina, and it was only in 785 a.d. that a governor of Medina
had these figures erased.7 This hardening of opinion toward the end of the eighth century is
in perfect keeping with the evidence given below.

It is also well known that Mu£äwiya and £Abd al-Malik struck coins with their own
effigies.8 Recently, Zaki Hasan 9 has sought to explain the undisputed existence of painting
under the Umayyad caliphs by saying that “they did not keep the straight and narrow way in

the Reproduction of Living Forms Among the Arabs [in
Arabic] (Cairo, 1942), pp. 119-39.

[Professor Creswell’s article is a revised and supple-
mented version of his essay first published in his Early
Muslim Architecture (Oxford, 1932), I, 269-71. ED.]

1 The first to point out that the prohibition against
painting comes not from the Koran but from the
Hadith, was Lavoix, in 1859, in “Les Peintures musul-
mans,” pp. 353-54. He was followed by Pharaon, op.
cit., pp. 443-44; Lavoix, “Les Arts musulmans,” pp. 98-
99; Karabacek, “Über das angebliche Bilderverbot des
Islam,” p. 291; De Nahuys, op. cit., pp. 229 and 233;
Chauvin, op. cit., pp. 405-6; Lammens, op. cit., pp. 242-
43; E. Kühnei, Kunst des Orients (Wildpark-Potsdam,
1929), p. 1; Migeon, op. cit., I, 101-2; Arnold, op. cit.,
pp. 4 ff. ; Ahmed Mousa, op. cit., p. 16.

2 F. Wüstenfeld’s ed., in Die Chroniken der Stadt
Mekka (Leipzig, 1857-61), pp. 111-13; quoted by Ar-
nold, op. cit., p. 7. This obliteration of pictures inside

the Kaaba is also mentioned by Balâdhurï, Futüh al-
Buldân, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leyden, 1866), p. 40; P.
K. Hitti’s trans. (New York, 1916), p. 66. See also
Creswell, op. cit., I, 40.

3 Ibid., p. 15.

4 Op. cit., p. 124.

s Creswell, op. cit., p. 15, n. 10.

6 Mu‘djam al-Buldän, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig,
1866-73), I> 792, 1. 21 — p. 793, 1. 4. ‘Ubaid Allah was
killed at the battle of the river Khäzir, near Mosul in
67 h. (686 a.d.) ; K. V. Zetterstéen’s article, “ ‘Ubaid
Allah b. Ziyäd,” Encycl. Isläm (Leyden-London, 1934),
IV, 985.

7 Ibn Rusta, Kitäb al-A‘läk al-Nafïsa, ed. M. J. de
Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum ( =
B.G.A.) (Leyden, 1892), III, 66, 11. 15-19; quoted
by Enani, op. cit., p. 25, and Arnold, op. cit., pp. 8-9.

8 Creswell, op. cit., p. 96.

9 Op. cit., p. 127.

THE LAWFULNESS OF PAINTING IN EARLY ISLAM

161

matters of religion,” except Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz, who, on one occasion, actually is recorded
to have objected to a picture in a bath. He had it obliterated and exclaimed: “If only I could
find out who painted it, I would have him severely beaten.” 10 I suggest that this painting
was most probably pornographic, as was often the case in hammams 11 and that this was the
real cause of Omar’s anger, for it has just been seen that he had no objection to a censer with
human figures on it which was used to perfume the mosque of Medina.

Yet in spite of the silence of the Koran, the Traditions (Hadith) 12 are uniformly hos-
tile to all representations of living forms.13 Arnold, the latest scholar to discuss this question,
believed that this hostility dates almost from the time of Muhammad, and held that the
paintings of Kusair ‘Amra were executed in defiance of it.14 Now although later caliphs and
sultans certainly did defy the prohibition on many occasions, there appears to be good rea-
son for believing that this prohibition had not yet been formulated at the time when the
frescoes of Kusair ‘Amra were executed. When did the change take place? A valuable clue
is provided, curiously enough, by the Patrology. Our first witness is John, Patriarch of Da-
mascus 15 and the great opponent of the Iconoclasts, who in the words of Becker, “repre-
sents the whole world of thought of the Eastern church at that time.” He did not live se-
cluded in some distant monastery, but occupied a prominent place in the court life of the
later Umayyad period, although he retired to a monastery shortly before his death. He be-
longed to an old Damascus family, the Banu Sardjün, which had played an important part
in the state administration under ‘Abd al-Malik and even earlier. His active life must be
placed roughly between 700 and 750 a.d.,16 so that he was a contemporary of Kusair ‘Amra.

10 Ibn al-Djawzi, Manäkib ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Aziz,
ed. C. H. Becker (Leipzig, 1899), p. 80; quoted by
Enani, op. cit., p. 33, and Arnold, op. cit., pp. 46-47.

11 al-Ghuzüli, Matali1 al-Budür (Cairo, 1300 h.), II,
8; and Ibn al-Hàdjçfi, Mudkhal (Cairo, 1348 h.), II,
178-79.

12 The Hadith are traditions concerning the actions
and sayings of Muhammad, which circulated orally until
they were collected, sifted, accepted or rejected, system-
atized, and written down for the first time in the ninth
century by Bukhari, Muslim, Abü Dä’üd, Malik ibn
Anas, Ibn Sa‘d, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, and Ibn Hishäm,
each tradition being accompanied by its isnäd, or chain
of oral descent (e.g., so-and-so heard it from his father,
who heard it from so-and-so, who knew the blessed
Prophet). As early as the middle of the ninth century
the number of Hadith in circulation was enormous, the
majority false or suspect, for Bukhari, who died in 870
a.d., only accepted seven thousand out of six hundred
thousand which he had heard; see R. A. Nicholson, Lit-
erary History of the Arabs (Cambridge, 1930), p. 146.

13 Snouck Hurgronje, op. cit., pp. 186-91. van Berch-
em, op. cit., p. 371. Lammens, op. cit., p. 249. Enani, op.
cit., pp. 1-40. Arnold, op. cit., pp. 5-19, 3U and 38-4°-

For a complete list of references to this question in the
early collections of Hadith, see A. J. Wensinck, A Hand-
book of Early Muhammadan Tradition (Leiden, 1927),
p. 108. Snouck Hurgronje has shown that Karabacek’s
contention, that paintings are permissible in the entrance
hall of a building (“Kusejr ‘Amra,” p. 229 and n. 69 on
p. 237), is due to a misunderstanding of the text of al-
‘AskalänL See also C. H. Becker, “Das Wiener Kusair
‘Amra-Werk,” Zeitschr. f. Assyriol., XX (1906), 373—
75 ; reprinted in his Islamstudien, I, 300-304.

14 Arnold, op. cit., pp. 4-9 and 19.

15 He died ca. 750 a.d. For his life and works see
F. A. Perrier, Jean Damascene: sa vie et ses écrits
(Strasbourg, 1863); J. Langen, Johannes von Damaskus
(Gotha, 1879); J- H. Lupton, Saint John of Damascus
(London, 1882) ; V. Ermoni, Saint Jean Damascene
(Paris, 1904) ; and Becker, “Christliche Polemik und
islamische Dogmenbildung,” pp. 177-87; reprinted in his
Islamstudien, I, 434-43. His three treatises “against
those who depreciate the holy images” were written be-
tween 726 and 737 a.d.

16 Becker, “Christliche Polemik....,” pp. 177-78;
reprinted in his Islamstudien, p. 434.

IÖ2

K. A. C. CRESWELL

As Becker has pointed out, John knew the doctrines of Islam well, his quotations from
the Koran in Greek are sometimes almost literal translations of the original, and he even
gives the actual names of the suras cited.17

But although he was a violent opponent of the Iconoclastic movement and wrote his
treatises “against those who depreciate the holy images” 18 under the strong emotion caused
by the edict of 726, and although he wrote against Islam, he never refers to the Muslims as
being guilty in this respect, but only to the Christians and Jews, whereas Theodore Abu
Kurra, bishop of Harrän,19 who was a contemporary of Harun-al-Rashid and al-Ma’mün
and the first Father of the Church to write in Arabic, although he took most of his ideas from
the writings of John, differs from him in this respect, for he includes the Muslims among
the people opposed to painting. He does not actually refer to them as Muslims, but merely
says: “Those who assert that he who paints anything living, will be compelled on the Day of
Resurrection, to breathe into it a soul.” 20 Although the Muslims are not actually named, the
almost literal citation of the Muslim Hadith21 proves that they are meant and, in addition,
that the Hadith in question was already in circulation among the Muslims in the time of Abu
Kurra. Thus the movement may be placed toward the end of the eighth century.

This fact is of considerable importance to students of Byzantine art, for it renders un-
tenable the theory, put forward by Diehl 22 and Dalton,23 that the Iconoclastic movement,24
which took definite form in the edict of the Emperor Leo the Isaurian 25 in 726, was partly
due to defeats inflicted on the image-worshipping Byzantine army by an army of men hos-

17 “Christliche Polemik....,” pp. 179-80; Islam-
studien, p. 436. This suffices to show that Zakï Hasan’s
remark that Abü Kurra “could judge the Muslims by
what he read in their books and not only by what they
practiced” (op. cit., p. 180), applies equally to John.

Aoyos 7 rpoiTos ( — Seurepos — rptros) aTroÀoypn/coç
fl-poç tods SiaSaWovras raç âyiaç tî/covas, m J. P. Migne,
Patrologia, Series Graeca (Paris, 1857-81), XCIV, cols.
1231-1420, and three smaller treatises in XCV, cols.
309-86, and XCVI, cols. 1347-62.

19 For his life, see C. Bacha, Un Traité des oeuvres
arabes de Théodore Abou-Kurra (Tripoli, 1905), pp. 3-
7. His works have been published at Beirut in 1904,
and by G. Graf, Die arabischen Schriften des Theodor
Abu Qurra (Paderborn, 1910); and the part that con-
cerns us by J. P. Arendzen, Theodori Abu Kurra de
cultu imaginum libellus e codice arabico (Bonn, 1897).

20 Ibid., pp. 18-19; and Graf, op. cit., pp. 297-98.

21 From Bukhari. Le Recueil des traditions mahomé-
tans, ed. L. Krehl and T. W. Juynboll (Leiden, 1862-
1908), II, 41, and IV, 106: “On the Day of Judgment
the punishment of hell will be meted out to the painter,
and he will be called upon to breathe life into the forms
that he has fashioned; but he cannot breathe life into
anything”; see Arnold, op. cit., p. 5.

22 C. Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin (Paris, 1910), p.
336.

23 O. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology
(Oxford, 1911), p. 13, and idem, East Christian Art (Ox-
ford, 1925), p. 15.

24 For an account of this movement see: K. Pap-
parrëgopoulos, Histoire de la civilisation hellénique
(Paris, 1878). K. J. von Hefele, A History of
the Councils of the Church, W. R. Clark’s trans.
(Edinburgh, 1896), V, 370 ff. ; K. Schwarzlose, Der
Bilderstreit (Gotha, 1890); A. Lombard, Études d’his-
toire byzantine (Paris, 1902), pp. 105-28; L. Bréhier,
La Querelle des images (Paris, 1904) ; Diehl, op. cit.,
PP- 334-39 (2d ed.; Paris, 1925), I, 360-65; Dalton,
Byzantine Art, pp. 13-16; C. Diehl, “Leo III and the
Isaurian Dynasty,” Cambridge Medieval History (New
York-Cambridge, 1936), IV, 5—1 1 ; H. Leclercq, “Im-
ages,” in F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq, Dictionnaire
d’archéologie chrétienne (Paris, 1907), VII, cols. 232-
302; G. Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Geschichte des byzan-
tinischen Bilderstreites (Breslau, 1929); G. Ostrogorsky,
“Les Débuts de la querelle des images,” in Mélanges
Charles Diehl (Paris, 1930), I, 235-55; A. A. Vasiliev,
Histoire de l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1932), I, 333-51.

25 As a result of recent research, it now seems prob-
able that Leo was of North Syrian and not of Isaurian
origin; see Vasiliev, op. cit., I, 311-12.

THE LAWFULNESS OF PAINTING IN EARLY ISLAM

163

tile to all forms of human representation. This theory has been accepted by Wiet, who, after
citing the decree of the Caliph Yazid (see below), quotes Michael the Syrian to the effect
that “l’empereur des Grecs, Léon, ordonna lui aussi, à l’exemple du roi des arabes, d’arracher
les images des parois, et il fit abattre les images qui étaient dans les églises et les maisons,
celles des saints aussi bien que celles des empereurs ou d’autres.”

“Michel le Syrien,” adds Wiet, “est logique avec la tradition de l’Église. On sait qu’au
deuxième concile de Nicée, tenu en 787, les évêques qui condamnèrent les iconoclastes esti-
mèrent que les mesures prises contre les images l’avaient été à l’imitation des musulmans.” 26
What was this decree of Yazid? According to Theophanes (d. 818) “a Jew of Latakia,
coming in haste to Yazid, promised him a reign of forty years over the Arabs if he destroyed
the holy ikons which were adored in the churches of the Christians in all his empire. But
in this same year Yazid died before most of the people had even had time to hear about his
Satanic order.” 27 The execution of this order had already begun in Egypt28 when Yazid died
(January 26, 724), and his successor Hishäm revoked it on his accession.

As for the famous Council of Nicaea of 787, Michael the Syrian, who wrote in the sec-
ond half of the twelfth century, does not tell the whole story. The true facts may be learned

26 G. Wiet, “Introduction,” in E. Pauty, Bois sculptés
d’églises coptes (Cairo, 1930), pp. 3-4.

27 Theophanis Chrono graphia, ed. G. de Boor
(Leipzig, 1883-85), p. 401. He places this event in the
Year of the World 6215 (724 a.d.). Dionysius of Tell
Mahrë (d. 845 a.d.) places it in the year of the Greeks
1035 (723-24 a.d.); J. B. Chabot, ed., “Chronique de
Denys de Tell-Mahré,” Bibliothèque de l’école des
hautes études, fasc. 112 (Paris, 1895), P- 79> and trans.,
p. 17. Michael the Syrian {Chronique de Michel le Syrien,
patriarche jacobite d’Antioche, J. B. Chabot, ed.
[Paris, 1899-1904], II, 457; trans., II, 489) and Bar
Hebraeus ( Chronography , ed. P. Bedjan, Makhtë-
bhânûth Zabhnê [Paris, 1890], p. x 1 8 ; The Chronog-
raphy of Gregory Abû ’l Faraj, trans. E. A. W. Budge
[London, 1932], I, 109) also mention it but without giv-
ing a date. Makrïzî ( Khitat [Bulaq, 1853] I, 302, line
3 1 ; trans by P. Casanova, Mém. inst. franç. d’arch.
orient, du Caire, III [1893-1920], 165) said that it took
place in 104 h. (June, 723-June, 724 a.d.). I must add,
however, that doubts have been expressed regarding the
authenticity of this story, e.g., by J. Wellhausen {Das
arabische Reich und sein Sturz [Berlin, 1902], pp. 202-
3) and A. Musil {Kusejr ‘Amra [Wien, 1907], p. 155).
It is true that Tabari, as Wellhausen points out, merely
stated that a Jew had prophesied that Yazid would reign
forty years, and that Eutychius and Butrös ibn Rähib
knew nothing of the matter. But the silence is not com-
plete, for other writers, equally early, speak of it, e.g.,
the Arabic historian al-Kindi (d. 961 a.d.), and three
ecclesiastical historians, Dionysius of Tell Mahrë, quoted
above, the anonymous Syriac chronicle of the year 846

a.d., published and translated by E. W. Brooks, “A
Syriac Chronicle of the Year 846,” Z.D.M.G., 0(1897),
p. 584, and Severus ibn al-Mukaffa‘, bishop of Ashmunain
in the tenth century; see al-Kindi, The Governors and
Judges of Egypt; orKitäb el-’Umarä’ {el-Wuläh) waKitäb
el-Qudäh, ed. R. Guest, E. J. W. Gibb Mem. Ser., XIX
(Leiden-London, 1912), 71-72; and Severus ibn al-
Mukaffa’, ed. B. T. A. Evetts, trans., Patrologia Orient-
alis {History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of
Alexandria) (Paris, 1904-10), V, 72-73 (or ed. C. F.
Seybold, Alexandrinische Patriarchen — Geschichte [Ham-
burg,1912], p. 153, line 7); quoted by Lammens, op.
cit., p. 278. The objections of Wellhausen and Musil are
therefore invalid. Moreover, on reading the proceedings
of the Council of Nicaea, I have come across a con-
temporary witness, the bishop of Messina who, at the
fifth session, stated that he was a boy in Syria when
the caliph {o-v/jlSovXos) of the Saracens threw down the
images: G. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et
amplissima Collectio (Florentiae, 1769), XIII, col. 200.

28 It is to this order that J. E. Quibell attributed the
mutilation of the paintings and sculptures found during
his excavations at the Monastery of Apa Jeremias at
Sakkâra; see his Excavations at Saqqara {iço8-ç, içoç-
10) (Cairo, 1912), p. iv. J. W. Crowfoot found that the
figure subjects in the floor mosaics of the churches at
Jerash had been mutilated before the final destruction of
the city by an earthquake, probably that of 747; see his
Churches of Jerash {British School Archaeol. at Jerusa-
lem, Suppl. Papers, 3) (London, 1932), p. 4; there can
be little doubt that this was done in compliance with the
same decree.

K. A. C. CRESWELL

164

by referring to an original document, viz., the actual proceedings of the Council in question,
which may be consulted by turning to the great work of Mansi. There we read that at the
reopening of the fifth session (October 4, 787), Tarasius remarked that the accusers of the
Christians had in their destruction of images “imitated the Jews, Pagans, Samaritans,
Manichaeans, and Phantasiasti (or Theopaschites).29

Whereupon the monk John, representative of the Eastern Patriarchate, asked permis-
sion to correct these erroneous ideas and to clear up the real origin of the attack on images,
apparently speaking, like the bishop of Messina 30 from first-hand knowledge of the facts.31
This is what he said:

After Omar’s death [February 9, 720] Ezid (Yazïd II), a frivolous and unstable man, succeeded
him. There lived at Tiberias a leader of the lawless Jews, a magician and a fortuneteller and a tool
of soul-destroying demons, named Tessarakontapechys [=40 cubits high] ... On learning of the
frivolity of the ruler Ezid, he approached him and began to utter prophecies . . . saying: “You will
live long and reign for thirty years if you follow my advice . . . Give order immediately without
any delay or postponement, that an encyclical letter be issued throughout your empire to the effect
that every representational (ùkovlk^v) painting, whether on tablets or in wall-mosaics or on sacred
vessels and altar coverings, and all such objects as are found in all Christian churches, be destroyed
and finally abolished, and so also all representations of any kind whatever that adorn and embellish
the market places of cities. . . .” The impious tyrant, yielding to his advice, sent [officials] and most
frivolously destroyed the holy ikons and all other representations in the whole province under his
rule and, thanks to the Jewish magician, thus ruthlessly robbed the churches of God under his sway
of all ornaments, before the evil came into this land. As the Christians fled lest they should [have
to] overthrow the holy images with their own hands, the emirs who were sent for this purpose
pressed into service abominable Jews and wretched Arabs ; and thus they burnt the venerable ikons,
and either smeared or scraped the ecclesiastical buildings.

On hearing this the pseudo-bishop of Nicolia and his followers imitated the lawless Jews and
impious Arabs and outraged the churches of God. . . . When after doing this, the Caliph (2vfi6ov Aos)
Ezid died no more than two and one-half years later [25 Sha‘bän 105 = January 27, 724], 32 the im-
ages were restored to their pristine position and honor. His son OiAiSoç (= al-Walïd — should be
Hishäm), filled with indignation, ordered the magician to be ignominiously put to a parricide’s death
as a due reward for his false prophecy.33

Thus, this act of Yazïd was in no way inspired by the doctrine of Islam at that period;
on the contrary it would never have taken place had it not been for the vain promises of a
fortuneteller,34 and it was promptly revoked by his successor.

How did the feeling arise? It has been suggested that it arose through the inherent

29 Mansi, op. cit., XIII, col. 196.

30 See end of footnote 27.

31 The importance of this cannot be overrated, for
all the works of the Iconoclasts, the imperial decrees,
and the acts of the iconoclastic councils of 753-54 a.d.
and 815 a.d. were destroyed when their adversaries
triumphed.

32 This gives the end of July, 721 a.d., for the date
of Yazid’s act.

33 Mansi, op. cit., XIII, cols. 198 and 200.

34 Let us remember that this was a period when “in-
dividuals” as Diehl says “put faith in the prophecies of
wizards, and Leo III himself, like Leontius or Philippi-
cus, had been met in the way by one who had said to
him: ‘Thou shalt be King’ op. cit., IV, 6.

THE LAWFULNESS OF PAINTING IN EARLY ISLAM

165

temperamental dislike of the Semite for human representations in sculpture and painting,35
an antinaturalistic reaction in fact. This undoubtedly helped, but the internal evidence points
to a direct Jewish influence. Lammens points out that the Hadith bearing on the question
in many cases shows Jewish inspiration, for example, the sayings: “The angels will not
enter a house containing a bell, a picture or a dog,” and “at the end of the world when Tsä
appears he will break the cross and kill the pigs.” 36 Bells were unknown in the time of Mu-
hammad, and the semantron did not inspire the Arabs with any antipathy. Nor did they
before Islam experience any special repugnance for pigs. The name khinzir is met with,
and the flesh of the wild boar appeared at feasts. The sayings cited above can only be ex-
plained as due to Talmudic influence.37 Again it is remarkable that the earliest recorded in-
stance of hostility to images and painting appears to have been inspired by Jewish influence,
viz., the iconoclasm of Yazïd II, cited above. A Christian influence, springing from the
iconoclastic movement which broke out in 726 a.d., is therefore unlikely, likewise a spontane-
ous Muslim impulse.

This Jewish influence was doubtless due to the internal effect of Jews who had been con-
verted to Islam, like the famous Yemenite Jew Ka‘b al-Ahbär, who was called Rabbi Ka‘b on
account of his wealth of theological and especially Biblical knowledge. Ka‘b entered Jerusalem
with Omar, was converted to Islam in 638 a.d., and died in 652 or 654. He is frequently cited
as an authority for Hadith, and Abd Allah ibn Abbas, one of the earliest expositors of the
Koran, was a pupil of his, likewise Abü Huraira. Another famous Jewish convert was Wahb
ibn Munabbih. These two men were the great authorities among the early Muslims on all
points of ancient history.38

Finally, as a predisposing psychological basis for the hostility to painting, there was
the feeling, so common among primitive peoples, that the maker of an image or a painting
in some way transfers part of the personality of the subject to the image or painting, and in so
doing acquires magical powers over the person reproduced.39 This feeling, which is still preva-
lent in some parts of the world, was once very widely spread. The practice of making wax im-
ages of the person to be bewitched, and thrusting pins through them, was known to the
Egyptians,40 Greeks, and Romans, and was widely spread in medieval Europe, e.g., John of

35Viardot, op. cit., I, 556-59; Barbier de Meynard,
op. cit., I, 333—35-

36 Lammens, op. cit., pp. 276-77.

37 Ibid.., pp. 276-79.

38 See G. Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems
(London, 1890), p. 142; and M. Schmitz, “Ka‘b al-
Ahbär,” Encycl. Isläm (Leiden-London, 1927), II, 582-
«3-

39 See P. Sébillot, “Superstitions iconographiques. I,
Les Portraits,” Revue des traditions populaires, I ( x 886) ,
No. 12, 349-54, and idem, “Superstitions iconographi-
ques. II, Les Statues,” ibid., II (1887), No. 1, 16-23;
Chauvin, op. cit., p. 423 ff.; E. Doutté, Merrâkech
(Paris, 1905), pp. 136-38; his Magie et religion dans

l’Afrique du Nord (Alger, 1909), pp. 16-17; and J. G.
Frazer, The Golden Bough (London-New York, 1890), I,
148-49 (2d ed.; London-New York, 1900), I, 10-18 and
295-97-

40 A small model of a man made of wax, papyrus,
and hair, which was intended to be burned slowly in a
fire while incantations were recited, in order to produce
some evil effect upon the person whom it represented,
was obtained in Egypt by Budge in 1895. It is now in
the British Museum, No. 37, 918; see E. A. W. Budge,
By Nile and Tigris (London, 1920), II, 347; idem, Guide
to the Third and Fourth Egyptian Rooms (London,
1904), p. 20.

i66

K. A. C. CRESWELL

Nottingham’s attempt to bring about the death of Edward II in 1324, and the similar at-
tempt of Agnes Sampson on the life of James VI of Scotland in 1589; 41 also the League’s
attempt to kill Henry III of France.42 A similar attempt on the life of Muhammad is related
by Djannäbi and Ali al-Halabi.43

My conclusion, therefore, is that the prohibition against painting did not exist in early
Islam, but that it grew up gradually, partly as a result of the inherent temperamental dis-
like of Semitic races for representational art, partly because of the influence of important
Jewish converts, and partly because of the fear of magic. It also follows that Muslim influ-
ence on the Edict of Milan is excluded.

41 See M. Summers’ introduction to his transla- 42 See P. de L’Éstoile, “Veritable fatalité de Saint-

tion of [Institoris, Henricus], Malleus Maleficarum Cloud,” Journ. des choses mémorables advenues durant le

(London, 1928), pp. xix-xx and xxii. The wax dolls were régne de Henry III, ed. by J. Le Duchat and D. Gode-
called “Mommets.” froy (Cologne [Bruxelles], 1720), art. 8.

43 Chauvin, op. cit., pp. 425-26.

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

BY A. R. NYKL

TT he following is a first attempt at presenting a complete account of the com-
paratively few Arabic inscriptions in Portugal, starting from the north.1

I. BRAGA

(Early eleventh century)

Around the upper part of a small ivory casket (Figs. 2-5), similar to that found in the
Cathedral of Pamplona (Navarra, Spain):

XwLäj Iv« LÜI xJjcXJI uU** ^ ^ aJJi ^jjo ifji aJJi

^»LJf . . . ^‘Y5.

First described in Rodrigo Amador de los Rios.2 My good friend, the late Professor
David Lopes, wrote concerning it.3 His final reading is the one given above, with the follow-
ing translation:

Em nome de Deus. A bençâo de Deus, felicidade e fortuna sejam com 0 hagibe Seifadaula —
glorifique-o Deusl — por ter mandado fazer esta obra ao seu servidor . . . amirita.4

II. COIMBRA

(First half of the twelfth century)

Engraved, most likely by a Mozarab mason, in the upper part of a stone, 60 cm. wide
by 40 cm. high, which is placed in the sixth row above the zôcalo, on the northern wall of the
Sé-Velha (Old Cathedral). A first description of it, as far as I could find, was given by Au-
gusto Filippe Simöes 5 and a more detailed one by Antonio de Vasconcelos,6 in his splendid
two-volume work which deserves being quoted in extenso:

Näo cito como vestigio do antigo edificio mourisco a lapide com inscriçâo em caractères arabes,
que se encontra na fachada setentrional da Sé-Velha, proximo da axila do transepto. Essa pedra foi
evidentemente aparelhada no século XII para êste edificio, ao mesmo tempo que as outras: pedra
extraida do mesmo jazigo, donde sairam as restantes, cortada nas mesmas medidas, preparada com o
mesmissimo aparelho, assente na fiada exactamente como as que a cercam, etc. Na construçâo da Sé

1 The Arabie inscriptions in Spain are available in
E. Lévi-Provençal’s Inscriptions arabes de l’Espagne
(Leiden, 1931); the Arabie inscriptions in the collection
of the Hispanic Society of America have been published
by W. Caskel. ( Arabic Inscriptions in the Collection of
the Hispanic Society of America [New York, 1936]).

2 Memoria acerca de algunas inscripciones arâbigas
de Espana y Portugal (Madrid, 1883), pp. 281-82.

3 “A inscripçâo arabe do cofre da Sé de Braga,” 0

Archeol. port., I (1895), 273, and II (1896), 204. See

also J. Ferrandis, Marfiles arabes de Occidente (Madrid,

1935—40) , I, 81-82 (with bibliography) and Pis. 37-38
(after which Figs. 2-5 were made).

4 This refers evidently to the hâdjib Saif al-Dawla
‘Abd al-Malik b. al-Mansür, son of the famous Alman-
zor. He changed the lakab Saif al-Dawla for that of
al-Muzaffar. Died on the sixteenth of Safar 399 (Octo-
ber 20, 1008 a.d.). Cf. E. Lévi-Provençal, “al-Muzaffar,”
Encycl. Isläm (Leiden-London, 1936), III, 797.

5 Reliquias da architectura romano-byzantina em
Portugal e particularmente na cidade de Coimbra (Lis-
bon, 1870).

6 A Sé-Velha de Coimbra (Coimbra, 1930-35), I, 29.

i68

A. R. NYKL

devem ter trabalhado canteiros muçulmanos cativos e canteiros cristâos mozârabes, e êstes usavam
também a escrita arabe, mesmo quando escreviam palavras de romance. Algum daqueles ou dêstes
gravou ali aquela inscriçâo. — O que diz? Até hoje, considero-a indecifrada. O primeiro que disse
tê-la lido foi o olissiponense Antonio Caetano Pereira, que traduziu: — Honra e gloria em especial foi
dada a este lugar pela no s sa assistência nêle. Exalt ado se fa aquele que o tornou em lugar de asilo para
os que vier am guardâ-lo e defendê-lo. — A seguir D. Pascual de Gayangos interpretou, mas corn hesita-
çôes: — . . . edipcou-ou corn solidez Ahmed Ben Ismael por mandado de ... , declarando-a incompleta.
— Depois um mouro marroquino, de nome Hage Mohammed Ben Omar Acalae, a pedido do sr. Jorge
Colaço, por solicitaçâo de A. Augusto Gonçalves, decifrou-a desta maneira: — Principiada a fa-
bricar na medida de seis, segundo o o ficio da prôpria mào do autor, corn grande cansaço dos mestres
em cada hora no mes de noa .. . (parecendo que deve ser Novembro). — Também a estudou o dr.
Kayserling, consultado pelo dr. Mendes dos Remédios, que lhe enviou um decalco muito nitido; mas
sinceramente respondeu: — “Budapest, le 16 janvier 1902. — Cher et honoré Monsieur. — ...Vous
m’avez fait une grande joie par votre lettre honorée; et vous prie d’excuser le retardement de ma
réponse; mais le cliché de l’inscription arabe, hélas! ni moi, ni plusieurs arabistes renommés consul-
tés par moi, comme Mr. Nöldeke, nous sommes hors d’état de la déchiffrer, ou plutôt découvrir le
sens.” — Note-se que Kayserling, assim como Nöldeke, o diretor da Porta linguarum, sâo autoridades
de primeira ordern. — Ultimamente um perito de Alexandria, muito sabedor do Arabe marroquino,
estudou a pedido do meu prezadissimo amigo dr. Manuel Monteiro, juiz do Tribunal Mixto daquela
cidade, um decalco da inscriçâo, que lhe foi enviado por A. Augusto Gonçalves; disse ter lido, e tra-
duziu assim: — J’ai attiré son attention sur mes doléances et il m’a comblé de ses bienfaits. — O sr.
Dr. David Lopes, cuja competência é por todos reconhecida, também estudou a inscriçâo, mas
confessa, em carta que teve a amabilidade de me dirigir em 13 de Maio de 1929, nada ter conseguido
1er, mesmo depois de ver tantas e tâo variadas interpretaçôes. — Conclusâo: A inscriçâo ârabe da Sé-
Velha ainda esta por decifrar; nâo se podendo prestar fé às supostas leituras até hoje feitas. Venha
porém, ou nâo venha, um dia a descobrir-se 0 verdadeiro significado do que nela estâ esculpido, nunca
aquela pedra poderâ ser apontada como resto dum anterior edificio mourisco, pela razâo jâ exposta:
— ela foi aparelhada no século XII, e por isso a inscriçâo nâo pode ser anterior.

I was able to locate the stone with the help of my friend Dr. Vergilio Correia, director of
the Museu Machado de Castro and of the excavations in the old city of Conimbriga, in August,
1940. After being duly washed and freed of the dark layer of dust covering it, the inscription
could be examined at close quarters. Figure 1 represents what I could establish beyond any
reasonable doubt:

Fig. i — Stone inscription. Coimbra

It became quite evident that Pereira’s reading was mere fantasy. Pascual de Gayangos’
error was due to his having assumed that it was a commemorative inscription, very common in
Spanish-Arabic epigraphy. The Moroccan’s interpretation was as fanciful as some of those
which Antonio Almagro Cardenas incorporated in his Estudio sobre las inscripciones arabes
de Granada (Granada, 1879). 7 The one who came closest to the meaning of the inscription
was the Alexandrian expert.

7 Cf. my study, “Inscripciones ârabes de la Alhambra y del Généralité,” Al-Andalus, IV (1936), 174-94.

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

169

With but slight corrections:

jujd! to xaaajI and |jo to ,my reading is the following:

)-> UjLiw jüûlül JÔ‘ j

I wrote (this) as a permanent record of my suffering; my hand will perish one day, but great-
ness will remain.

It would be tempting to correct the last word to (my writing), thus obtaining a

complete verse in tawll.

On another stone I found engraved the word , which might be the proper name
“Péreç” or ‘Tires,” possibly that of the Mozarab mason.8

III. SANTARÉM

In the Museu de S. Joâo de Alporäo there are four small capitals, listed under Nos. 4 and
5 in the manuscript catalogue. Pascual de Gayangos read them correctly:

w ^ Si

2 (Xt^ litX-uv iJJl

^ j &J| y

4. ^-<0 &JÜ! ô*xf

Zeferino Brandäo, author of Monumentos e lendas de Santarém, published an article 9
wherein he gave the picture of the two capitals with Pascual de Gayangos’ translation:

1. En el nombre de Allah el demente, el misericordioso, bendiga

2. Allah nuestro senor Mahoma

3. Y a su familia y concéda (a eilos) paz perfecta.

4. Me acojo a Allah (huyendo) de Satan el apedreado.

This was later included in his above-mentioned book (pp. 650 and 631). In line 4 after
“acojo” read: “al decreto de Allah, ...” A plaster cast of these capitals is also in the Museu
do Carmo in Lisbon.10

In the hall of a house in the Rua 1° de Dezembro, No. 46 (belonging to Ing. Antonio
Branco Cabral), my friend and guide in Santarém, Sr. Manuel Granado Vidal, librarian of
the Biblioteca Municipal Braamcamp Freire, showed me on April 25, 1939, a totally forgotten
tombstone on which I found Arabic inscriptions on the top and Persian inscriptions on three
sides; the fourth line, which may have contained the name of the deceased, was missing.
The inscriptions, beautifully carved in marble against a background which originally

8 A. R. Nykl, Diario de Coimbra, August 23, 1940;
“A Inscriçâo da Sé-Velha,” Al-Andalus, V (1940), 408-

XI.

9 “Vestigios de construcçâo arabe em Santarém,”
Ocidente, revista ilustrada de Portugal e do estrangeiro

(Lisbon).

10 A. R. Nykî, “ Inscriçôes arabes existentes no Museu
Arqueologico do Carmo,” Trabalhos da associaçào dos
arqueôl. port., V (1941), 7, PI. 1.

170

A. R. NYKL

was painted light blue, were badly mutilated in places, and consequently I urged Sr. Vidal to
persuade the owner to donate the stone to the Museu de S. Joäo de Alporäo, where it would
not be in danger of suffering further damage. With this in view my brief and hasty description
of the stone was published in the Correio da Extremadura on April 29, but despite my having
expressly stated that in consideration of its date and of the Shi‘ite inscriptions it must have
been brought from India by a curio-hunting navigator,11 the newspapers spread the erroneous
statements: “Trata-se dum notâvel documento da dominaçâo sarracena,” and: “Precioso ele-
mento para a histöria da passagem dos arabes em Portugal.” The stone was sent by its owner
to Lisbon and Professor David Lopes expressed the following opinion concerning it:

Dada a incerteza da data, o monumento séria, possivelmente, do século XIV e trazido a Portugal
de longes terras, o que mostraria também a inscriçâo persa dêle, pois nâo hâ noticia de inscriçâo persa
encontrada na nossa Peninsula. Sendo assim, a pedra perde bastante do seu valor, por nâo ser da
nossa época mussulmana. Sô o nome do Califa, lâ mencionado, poderia esclarecer 0 caso, mas a sua
identificaçâo é tâo dificil que bem se pode considerar impossivel.

This shows that Professor Lopes has paid but scant attention to the matter, because of his lack
of interest in epigraphy. In May, 1939, I obtained, through Sr. Vidal, a set of four photo-
graphs from a Santarém photographer, Jacinto Cardoso da Silva, who copied them from old
clichés which I was told had been made for “urn inglês” about fifteen years before. No further
information was available. Professor Joaquim Figanier of Lisbon requested the well-known
authority, Professor Henri Massé, of the École des Langues Orientales Vivantes, in Paris to
give him a translation of the Persian inscription and published it.12 He made use of the same
above-mentioned set of photographs and mentioned Professor A. Yahuda as one of those who
had seen the stone before me; however it may be, I can lay claim to having made the stone
more widely known and saved it from further mutilation in the hall where anyone could sit or
step on it.

The top or cover of the tomb shows the Islamic confession of faith: “Lä iläha illä-lläh,
Muhammad al-rasülu-lläh.” Above it, and then following to the left: “AMhumma salli
‘alä Muhammadin al-Mustafä, wa ‘alä ’l-Murtadä . . . [probably two names obliterated] . . .
wa ‘alä Zain al-‘Äbidin”; then to the right: Wa ‘alä ’1-Naki, w’al-Hasan al-‘Askarï, wa ’1-
hudjdjat al-kä’ima Muhammad al-Mahdi, salawät Allähi ‘alaihim adjma‘in.” 13

The obliterated name of the deceased is followed by a legible inscription. I give Massé’s
reading and translation with slight additions.

11 This curio-hunting habit is also attested by the
two Sanskrit inscriptions brought from India by the
famous Joäo de Castro and placed in the beautiful gar-
den of the quinta near Sintra which once belonged to
him and now belongs to a wholesale coal dealer. James
Murphy (cf. infra, under Evora) described them with
the aid of the Sanskrit scholar Wilson. A more accurate

study and description of them were made in 1927 by the
contemporary German ambassador.

12 “A Inscriçâo ârabo-persa de Santarém,” Petrus
Nonius, IV (1941), 59-63-

13 The Shi'ite imams, cf. Encycl. Isläm, s.v. Shi‘a,
Ismâ'ilïya, al-Zaidïya. Al-‘Askari died in 878 a.d., at
Samarra.

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

171

I. yfj<$ sLccoLs. sLw »jLo^

[&£j! C>-wXj ^}!tX<y0 9*9

^4.

2W ^ OMmAJ ^LX!s? ^LoL^.^v ^Ls* Ci y
j> ». j itw j <A»^.CvJ® \l^ipti3 &j!^j tX>wi \.Vi

^4^ <Jy*2 dL« ^

jU*^ ^r“'; 4 fj-Lku> v; 4 ^4

1. A great rider of his time, a rider king, courageous pädshäh, lord of the battlefield, he who on
the day of battle on the battlefield [was a wise, great lord by ancestry, he who] was the honor and
strength of his soldiers,

2. The lord of the earth dwellers was wounded on the twentieth day of the month of Safar; he
went on his journey toward his perpetual abode; 803 years had passed and 90, without doubt, since
the great Prophet’s Hijra [i.e., February 5, 1488 a.d.]

3. May, oh Lord, the soul of this martyr be near God’s messenger on the Day of Judgment!

A more detailed study of the stone and of the inscription might possibly yield more accu-
rate information.

IV. LISBON

A. Museu Militär

A cannon captured at the Portuguese colony of Diu in India bears an inscription which
was first copied and translated by P. Joâo de Sousa in his hitherto unpublished autograph
manuscript, “Nummismalogia ou breve recopilaçâo de algumas medalhas de ouro e de prata
dos Califas e dos Reis Arabes da Asia, Africa e de Hespanha, . . . Às quaes se ajunta huma
Inscripçâo Arabica, que esta gravada na Peça, vulgarmente chamada de Dio, que ao prezente
se acha no pateo da Caza da Fundiçâo, sita no Campo de Santa Clara desta Cidade.” The
manuscript is dated 1782. When the English architect James Murphy traveled in Portugal in
the years 1789-90, P. de Sousa gave him a copy of this inscription together with a translation
{Fig. 6), which was published in Murphy’s Travels in Portugal (London, 1795). Silvestre de
Sacy read the French translation of the work, published in Paris in 1797, and wrote to P. de
Sousa: “In majori Inscriptione Arabica . . . errores plures deprehendisse mihi videor”; then he
gave a corrected text with a brief commentary. To this letter P. de Sousa replied, as evidenced
by a note I found among his papers: “A este Professor de Paris se lhe respondeo a tudo quanto
elle dezijava saber e às duvidas em que estava sobre a obra do Inglez Morfei. . . .” Prior to
that P. Joâo de Sousa 14 had published the inscription with three other inscriptions.

14 “Memoria de quattro inscripçôes arabicas com
suas traducçôes,” Mem. litt. port. acad. r. sei.
Lisboa, V (1793), 363-76. In the same article he pub-
lished the Mertola inscription described infra, Evora

No. 5. P. de Sousa’s papers are kept in the Biblioteca
Municipal of Evora MS CXII/1-5. An interesting detail
might be noted here. John Pickering, United States
consul at Lisbon in 1799, studied Arabic with P. de

172

A. R. NYKL

Silvestre de Sacy submitted to the Institut National de France, on the third of Thermidor,
year XI, a “Mémoire” which was later printed,15 wherein he said that he proposed to “rétablir
la véritable lecture, et l’interprétation de celle-ci, qui n’a été jusqu’à présent ni bien lue, ni
bien expliquée.”

P. de Sousa’s pupil and successor in the chair of Arabic, Fr. José de Santo-Antonio
Moura, thought that De Sacy’s remarks were disrespectful to the memory of his master and
presented in the session of the Academia Real das Sciencias de Lisboa, on November n, 1818,
a “Memoria Apologetica sobre o verdadeiro sentido da inscripçâo, que se acha na peça cha-
mada de Dio.” This was printed 16 with a whole page reproduction of the inscription in its
correct form and a translation which is likewise correct:

A nosso Amo, Rei dos Reis do prezente Seculo, Vivificador da Lei do profeta do Misericordioso,
Esforçado guerreiro na exaltaçâo dos preceitos do Alcorâo, humilhador do fundamento dos Sectarios
do erro, destruidor das habitaçôes dos adoradores dos idolos, Vencedor no dia do encontro dos dous
Exercitos, Herdeiro do Reino de Salomäo, confiado em Deos Bemfeitor, e possuidor das Virtudes, o
Soberano Bahadur Xah, esta peça, fundida a 5 de Dul-Kaada do anno 939, se dedica.

This corresponds to May 30, 1533 a.d.

While it is true that P. de Sousa misread two phrases and made far-fetched guesses in
explaining them, the gist of his rendering and especially the Hijra date were correct:

£/oIäJI

ScXa* ^L>t>

‘^jLU! «JJL? vikLJ ^I^J!

‘^LkJLJl »Li JoLaâJ! viULo

îüLt.t.wJ y ^-0^-5 y 5cX&äJ!

Sousa, who said about him: “Este sugeito aqui fre-
quentou os seus estudos da lingua arabica de que jâ
tinha seus principios.”

15 “Mémoire sur quelques inscriptions arabes existant
en Portugal, et rapportées dans le voyage de J. Murphy,
et dans les Mémoires de littérature porhigaise publiées
par l’Académie royale de sciences de Lisbonne,” Mém. de
litt., II (18x5), 596-616.

16 Historia e memorias da academia real das sci-
encias de Lisboa, X (1827), Pt. I, 1-8. A further dis-

cussion of the subject by David Lopes and Esteves
Pereira is mentioned by Sousa Viterbo, Noticia de alguns
arabistas e interprètes de linguas africanas e orientaes
(Coimbra, 1906), p. 12. Two other interesting details:
Antonio Caetano Pereira’s “espolio litterario foi vendido
a monte para uso de uma tenda,” and Fray José de
Santo-Antonio Moura was appointed to the chair of
Arabic on August 27, 1798, was confirmed as the holder
of the chair on June 5, 1808, and began to draw salary
on November 4, 1810!

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

173

B. Museu Etnologico do Dr. José Leite de Vasconcelos

In August, 1940, when the Monastery dos Jeronimos and the Museum were a part of the
wonderful Exposiçâo do Duplo Centenârio, I found among the vast number of valuable relics
brought together by the untiring zeal of the late Dr. José Leite de Vasconcelos a group of
stones with Arabic inscriptions, not properly catalogued. Dr. Manuel Heleno, the present
director of the Museum, accepted my offer to make drawings and translations of the material
which were to be published in an archaeological review. Thus far I have received no definite
information on the subject and feel at liberty to give here a brief summary of my findings.

A small ablution fountain, in marble, presumably from Sintra. It resembles, as to form,
the one preserved in the Museo Arqueolögico in Granada, and the one in the Alhambra. Only
the basmala can be read easily; the rest of the inscription is obliterated by water.

This inscription was found in Frielas, a suburb of Lisbon, in the country house of Sr.
Castanheira das Neves (Fig. 7). Described by David Lopes:

*JUt fSljJt

L JUUifb

jküt ^ Ui’lj

libG)

aJJl

His translation: “Deus é etemo. Sê compassivo com 0 teu [bem] superfluo, 6 tu que me
estas vendo, e contempla um logar que é um dom do proprio Deus. . . .” 17 needs correction:
“The Eternal is God only. Say ‘may God have mercy on him/ you who are stopping [in front
of the stone] and contemplate the place for a while. Allah . . . Muhammad.”

Found in the church of the freguesia (parish) of S.Thomé de Agui k,concelho (district) de
Arcos de Valdevez, in the province of Alto Minho. It was used as a support of the pyx in the
tabernacle ( sacrario ) . It measures 5 1 cm. in circumference and is 4 cm. thick. First described by
F. Alves Pereira,18 who said:

A sua leitura nâo foi ainda feita. É um fragmento muito reduzido para poder abranger um
numéro sufficiente de caractères. O Sr. Asin Palacios, do corpo redactoral da Cidtura espanola, so
pôde assegurar que a lapide é do typo granadino e da epoca ultima. Vem pois a ser do sec. XV este
monumento. O illustre professor David Lopes, a quern também tive a honra de consultar, nenhuma
interpretaçâo conseguira.

17 “Inscripçâo de Friellas (arrabalde de Lisboa),” 0 18 “Uma inscriçâo arabica,” 0 Archeol. port., XIV

Archeol. port., II (1896), 207. (1909), 55-56.

174

A. R. NYKL

If these lamented friends of mine were asked to express an opinion on the basis of the pho-
tograph published in the article (Fig. 8) there is little wonder that they could not read it.
When examined in situ the following could be read:

^ a

1 . [jVAÄjJt jJl |4~vvj]

2. LôJJ! sLçiÇ

[J^yL]4-l [p-o IA*0]

Basmala. ... the life of this world. . . . al-shaikh al-wazïr al-dja [lïl] . . . . rast! al-M . . .

Sr. Alves Pereira surmised that the stone was sent to Alto Minho from Lisbon and
believed that in the archdiocese of Braga a goodly number (“ bastantes mais”) of such stones
ought to exist. Thus far none has come to light.

Concerning this fragment one reads: “O Sr. Antonio da Silva Fernandes, de Mertola,
offereceu uma lapide com o fragmento de uma inscripçâo arabe em caractères cuficos. Foi
achada naquella villa. Jâ esta no Museu. Inedita.” 19 David Lopes 20 writes: “So pudemos
1er algumas palavras; outrem mais perito conseguirâ 1er mais.” He only read:

1. [f^Jl ^1-yt aJJl

2. j-ö ÎÂ.Î&

to which could be added:

2 . f t^l*

3. $ oilLb.

4. ^

A fragment:

[ 4- ^ acDf [ ]

• — Çj vj

[aJI] j x[JJf

A plaster cast of a tombstone of unknown provenance, probably from Mertola:

19 J. L. de V[asconcelos], “Acquisiçôes do Museu 20 “Inscripçâo de Mertola, pertencente ao Museu

Ethnographico Português,” 0 Archeol. port., I (1895), Ethnographico Português,” 0 Archeol. port., II (1896),
221. 206.

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

175

In the name of God, Compassionate, Merciful. Oh people, verily, the promise of God is truth-
ful, hence let not the life of this world deceive you, and let not the deceiver deceive you concerning
God.21 This is the grave of Abdallah b. Abdallah; he died on Saturday of the month Djumädä II, of
the year 498.

This corresponds to February 18, 1105 a.d.

A tombstone from Mertola (Fig. ç ). Described by Rodrigo Amador de los Rios 22 and
by Sebastiâo Philippes Martins Estacio da Veiga, in his excellent book, Memoria das anti-
guidades de Mertola observadas em 18 77, 23 with several errors. Corrected text:

. yp tv

y* Î w I

c3 a

aJI ; *JUf JU>

cXaä-

<5^

yàà j âJÜÎ

ij* 24

10.

11.

y .&Laaj^î

12.

200 yb s y

i3-

This is the grave of the sheikh abu-Bekr — Yahyâ b. Abdallah b. — al-Huwäri; he died, may God
— have mercy upon him — and brighten his face, — on Wednesday of Dhû’I-Hidîdîa. 598. — Such was
also the journey — of the prophets and of the righteous — and may God protect his people against all
nations.

The corresponding Christian date, August 22, 1202, falls really on Thursday, in case the

21 Koran, XXXV, 5. nately, a poor reproduction and is given to show the

22 “Lapidas arâbigas del Museo Provincial de Cördo- kind of Neskhi used,

ba,” Museo Espanol de Antigüedades, IX (1878), 333. 24 [?]

23 Lisbon, 1880. Figure 9, from this book, is, unfortu-

iy6

A. R. NYKL

first of the month was intended. If it was not, there would be four Wednesdays to choose from:
August 28, September 4, 11, and 18.

A granite slab (Fig. 10), 25 which contains, as Rodrigo Amador de los Rios correctly
stated, a quotation from the Koran (XXXVI, 27):

8]cXju (JJO auy> UJyj! Lo y

And we have not sent [any hosts] upon his people after him.

A fragment of what appears to be an apprentice’s trial work, similar to No. 3 in the
Faro Museum.

C. Museu do Carmo

A tombstone (Fig. 11 ) standing in the grass-covered open space, near the entrance door:

(tsVJ

y a-yU äJÜ! «4^. 1

;tXJf *J U riLAI|

StXxäJ! ^c> ^ oLûâJI 3

6. y y CU« &Â_[_juv]

[Basmala.] [Name of the deceased.] [Died], God’s mercy be upon him — and upon Islam, on

the night of the full moon — in the middle of Dhu’l-Ka‘da — of the year 486.

Corresponds to Wednesday, December 7, 1093 a.d.26

V. ALCACER DO SAL

José Leite de Vasconcelos in his article “Excursäo archeologica a Alcacer-do-Sal,” 27 men-
tions “uma inscripçâo lapidar da epocha arabe,” with no further information. I had no oppor-
tunity to verify the statement.

VI. EVORA

Four stones with Arabic inscriptions are preserved in the Museu Regional, the remnant
of a larger collection 28 made by Fr. Manoel do Cenaculo Vilas Boas, the scholarly bishop of

25 Described in Da Veiga’s book, op. cit., p. 156.

26 A. R. Nykl, “Inscribes arabes existentes no
Museu Arqueologico do Carmo,” pp. 7-8, PI. 2.

27 0 Archeol. port., I (1895), 86.

28 The original collection consisted of 122 items ac-
cording to drawings preserved in the Biblioteca Munici-
pal of Evora. Augusto Filippe Simöes in his Relatorio â

cerca da renovaçâo do Museu Cenaculo (Evora, 1869),
said (p. 19) : “Deduz-se porem da ‘Viagem de Murphy’
que havia no fim do seculo passado outras pedras na
colleçâo que näo chegaram a ser desenhadas, talvez por
serem adquiridas posteriormente ao tempo em que se
fizeram os desenhos.” No. 90 in the above-mentioned
book of drawings is a tombstone with five lines in Kufic ;

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

177

Beja and later archbishop of Evora, whose wisdom saved Evora from destruction during the
Peninsular War. It was he who started P. Joâo de Sousa, a Christian native of Damascus, who
arrived in Lisbon in August, 1749, on his religious and scholarly career, sometime between
1768 and 1773.

The stone was found in a hole of the wall of the church of S. Pedro in Evora, which was
later rebuilt into a school. The Spanish scholar Eduardo Saavedra published a translation 29
of the inscription. The stone itself, marble, measures 51 cm. high by 30 cm. wide on the top
and 25 cm. at the bottom, by 3 cm. thick. The inscription is 43 cm. high by 26 cm. wide and
consists of seven lines in Kufic characters:

A+Ä-f J-O liXSB iX+Z? xJUl
L=*yi tX+ss? Jo ^J!

&JÜI

y y

s2L$

Saavedra translated:

En el nombre de Dios clemente y piadoso. La bendiciön de Dios sea sobre Mahoma. Este es el
sepulcro de Ahamed, hijo del visir Abubéquer Mohammed, hijo de Reijana; muriô (apiâdese Dios
del) en la noche del jueves, pasadas cinco de safar, ano 525. (1130 de Cristo). — According to

Mahler-Wiistenfeld’s tables: January 8, 1131.

In the wall of a house which originally belonged to the noble family of the Lobos de
Montemor-o-Novo, in the Rua do Diogo Cäo in Evora, there was a huge granite slab, now
split into two fragments, inscribed with Arabic phrases. A well-known Spanish Arabist, the
late D. Francisco Codera y Zaidin, described the two fragments 30 and gave the following
reading: “Lo que quiere Alâ, pues no hay poder sino en Alâ, mi suficiencia es Alâ, que es el
misericordioso.”

The larger piece is 1.2 1 m. long, 34 cm. wide, 22 cm. high. The smaller one 45 cm. long,
20.5 cm. wide, and 34 cm. high.

The inscription is in Kufic characters, 10 cm. high, and badly mutilated.

the first two read: Bismillähi al-rahmän al-rahïm; sallä
llähu ‘alâ Muhammadin wa ‘alä älih; the three following
are very fragmentary.

29 “Inscripciön arâbiga de Evora en la iglesia de San
Pedro,” Rev. archeol., III (1889), 54-55.

30 “Inscripciön arabe del Museo de Evora,” Boletin
acad. hist., XXXIX (1901), 411-12.

i78

A. R. NYKL

This is what can be read with a fair degree of certainty:

y ‘âcLJî ‘ä«ULj yi 5 ys ‘&.X&JÎ ^iLw Lj

Oh thou who curest illness — there is no power except in God — God is He on whom I rely — He
is compassionate.

Codera ’s readings, mä shä ’lläh at the beginning and al-rahmän at the end, are inexact, due
to the poor quality of the calcos sent him by Sr. Antonio Francisco Bara ta from Evora.

It could be surmised that the inscription was placed above the entrance to a hospital.
One-half of the larger slab is occupied by capital Roman letters which could be read
“Introibo” or “Prohibido.”

The date seems to be about 500 h. (1106 a.d.).

Fixed on the wall of the old City Hall building on the Praça de Geraldo there was an in-
scription in two parts preserved in a drawing made by P. de Sousa. The original seems to
have disappeared, and all my diligent search for it proved in vain.31 Sr. Barata included it in his
catalogue, evidently confounding it with the one described under 4.

P. de Sousa gave the following translation of the upper section:

Confessae e crede que näo ha Deus senäo Deus, e que Mahomed é o seu legado. Possuimos a
terra com o socorro de Deus e nos senhoreamos della. Vencidos foram os Rumes (christäos) nas terras
remotas e tornaram a veneer depois de terem sido vencidos, passados alguns annos; porque a dispo-
siçâo do passado e do futuro sô a Deus pertence. De Ben Axafâ Mahomed Haranaqui.

And of the lower section:

Prometteu Deus aos Crentes e aos que fazem boas obras a victoria contra os infieis, a possessäo
da terra e a continua successâo, assim como elles succederam aos seus antepassados. Confirmar-lhes-
ha cada vez mais a sua lei e lhes trocarâ 0 medo por uma firme segurança.

James Murphy made a very imperfect drawing of the tombstone mentioned under 3, and
published it in his Travels in Portugal {Fig. jj). Silvestre de Sacy spoke of it in his afore-
mentioned letter to P. de Sousa:

Inter inscriptiones Arabicas quae a Jacobo Murphei in itineris sui Lusitanici narratione prolatae
sunt, una est paucis vocibus constans, sed intricatissimis Litterarum ductibus scripta, quam Tab. 23a
exhibet hujusce inscriptionis superiorem partem legi. Sententia est ex Alcorano desumpta quae sepul-

31 To judge from Simöes (op. cit., p. 36) the stone
was still extant in 1869 on the wall of the “Paços do
Concelho do lado da praça.” It must have disappeared
at the time when the old building was torn down. The
passage “Vencidos . . . pertence” is from the Koran

(XXX, 1-3); the copy contains three errors: b}

instead of : (j y***^*> ; , instead of : , and

a superfluous 5 after . The name in modern

transcription: Ibn Ashfa1 Muhammad al-Haranki.

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

179

chris haud raro inscribitur: JT : Inferiorem ejusdem Tabulae partem quae de-

functi nomina, tempusq quo obiit, servare videtur, frustra legere hactenus tentavi.32

No one could have hoped to decipher Murphy’s conundrum without examining the tomb-
stone in situ, as I have done. Such as it appears today, after more than one hundred and fifty
years, the stone does not seem to have suffered further damage (Fig. 14). It is of marble,
split in two parts; 35 cm. wide, 49 cm. high, and 4 cm. thick. The upper part contains the
phrase read by De Sacy. Of the three lines in the lower section only the first one offers no
ambiguities whatever; in the second and third there are a few letters which have been almost
obliterated by rains. The date must be rather late, about 600 h., as the style of the writing
reminds one of the commemorative stone of Faro:

2.
3-

o . w ^

^ ItX# 6 \ y fa^-~ ^ , yj y.' k Lj

.A&. î V Axk L.2.J ^ja^a] [ ? ] xk J

0 C

Every soul will taste death. 1. Oh you who visit [this cemetery] pray to God that he may par-
don and have mercy on your brother, and remember this journey [toward the Day of Judgment].
2. [The soul] will be taken away from you by God; no vestige of its pride appears in the humble
grave. 3. From the injustice [of this world] we have to return to the Lord; say: to God, and to the
mercy, and great generosity.

A badly mutilated, marble tombstone, which was found near Mertola. In its present con-
dition it measures 38 cm. high, 35 cm. wide, and 3 cm. thick. To judge from its Kufic
character it dates probably from 500 h. P. Joâo de Sousa gave a complete drawing of the
stone, with text and translation, but it seems that he tried to reconstruct the original appear-
ance from the fragment (Fig. 12). It seems improbable that the stone would have been so
thoroughly multilated since 1793.

This is what can be read now:

5-
6.

bLcif pJo^àj’

StXxifc iüJS ^ ^ viil &[JJLj]

ÔAAÂ-lf y kfcLd!

Uo • ^ ^2 G® y

ttXê 13 h«

32 Evora MS CXXVIII/1-4, No. 113. Letter dated
Paris Cal. Jul. an. Repub. XIV.1803,” which would

make it three years later than the Mémoire mentioned in
the paragraph about the cannon of Diu.

i8o

A. R. NYKL

7- u®;’ ^ <£)&> ^ )

8. [^=» *Lft ^jl [«yj*3]

On the left border: ^ to *j ^y» 81 5 iLu« —

In P. de Sousa’s translation:

Portanto, nâo vos engane a vida mundana, nem vos entregueis aos enganos do tentador (que
pretende apartar-vos da lei de Deus). So Deus é que conhece a faora do dia do juizo. Elle é 0 que faz
cair a chuva e sabe o mais occulto das entranhas. O homem nâo sabe o que poderâ adquirir no dia de
amanhâ, nem em que terra sera a sua sepultura, pois Deus é sabio e noticioso.” 33 And: “Nâo dormita,
nem dorme. D’elle é o que esta no ceu.34

vn. BE j A
(Twelfth century)

In the Museu Distri tal there is a tombstone which was first mentioned by José Leite de
Vasconcelos.35 Professor David Lopes36 described it as follows: “A pedra tem os bordos
bastante damnificados, e no angulo da direita soffreu uma pequena quebra. A inscripçâo é em
cufico e bem gravada.” Then he gave a transcription with an error in the name of the
deceased, and especially in the date, reading sittin instead of thaläthin, which caused him
to assume that it corresponded to “quarta-feira, 5 de Janeiro de 1166 de J.C.” and, conse-
quently, that “esta inscripçâo é, pois, em vista da data, jâ do tempo do dominio português,
porque foi em 1162 que os christâos se assenhorearam de Beja.” 37

s 05

jJ! &-Ü!

05 w

aJJI y jvaâ.

?.. 38

rr5- 15V

33 Koran, XXXI, 33-34-

34 Koran, II, 256. In the article referred to in foot-
note 14, pp. 373-75, P. de Sousa said: “Esta inscripçâo
foi achada junto ao Convento dos Religiosos Francisca-
nos perto da Villa de Mertola” and his translations are
slightly different : “Nâo vos engane a vida mundana, nem
vos entregueis às persuasôes do tentador (Satanâs) ; pois
pretende separar-vos da Lei de vosso Deos, 0 quai sô
conhece a hora do dia (do Juizo). Elle he que faz
cahir a chuva, e o que pénétra 0 mais occulto das en-
tranhas. O homem ignora 0 que poderâ lucrar no dia de

à manhaâ, nem sabe em que terra sera sepultado; pois
s6 Deos he sabio, e plenamente instruido.” And: “Nâo
dormita nem o acomette a somnolencia. Delle he tudo
o que ha no Ceo.”

35 “Inscripçâo da epocha wisigothica,” O Archeol.
port., II (1896), 175.

36 “Inscripçâo lapidar arabe existente no Museu Dis-
trital de Beja,” O Archeol. port., II (1896), 175.

37 Cf. A. Herculano, Historia de Portugal (Lisbon,
1846), I, 399.

38 The reading is not very sure.

Fig. 2

After Ferrandis

Fig. 3

After Ferrandis

Fig. 4

After Ferrandis

Fig. 5

Figs. 2-5 — Ivory Casket. Braga

(sV UjLJL, b V>i

/ j **(?!

*<> — *— -*- f)l»l> Ctjibif £JL| ^L>( x-olill

C-iJÎX ^ *yi

çl t ■^\^g_a II JtftfotUVl ij^c^MIfeUjL-

^Avi f ft Vâ> y f CiÀb 1 si -v' >S bv|

.'/‘A_j[^j> oJùjj ç+uJ &M qS*J> ïll^So

After Murphy

Fig. 6 — P. de Sousa’s Copy of Cannon inscription. Lisbon, Museu Militär

After Pereira

After Estacio da Veiga

Fig. 8 — Inscription from S. Thomé
de Aguia

Fig. io — Slab With Koranic Inscription

Figs. 7-10 — Lisbon, Museu Etnologico do Dr. José Leite de Vasconcelos

Fig. ii— Tombstone. Lisbon, Museu do Carmo

After Nykl

Fig. 14 — Photograph

AFTER MURPHY

Fig. 13 — Murphy’s Drawing

Figs. 13-14 — Tombstone. Evora

After Murphy

Fig. 15 — P. de Sousa’s Drawing

Fig. 16 — Photograph

After Nykl

33 cm.

;

Figs. 15-17 — Building Inscription. Moura

After Nykl

Fig. 19 — Tombstone. Faro

After Nykl

Fig. 18 — Building Inscription. Faro

Fig. 20 — Trial Piece. Faro

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

181

If the first day of the month is meant, the corresponding Christian date would be Friday,
November 27, 1136; if the first Sunday of the month is meant, the date would be November
29, 1136, nearly three years before the battle of Ourique.39

VTII. MOURA

(Eleventh century)

In his Travels in Portugal Murphy published an inscription in Kufic letters which he said
was given to him by P. Joâo de Sousa, with two additions in the first two lines, but without
any translation. P. de Sousa seems to have understood only the first line, but could not fur-
nish any data concerning the other two, made probably from a very imperfect rubbing. Such
as they were, the two lines presented an undecipherable enigma (Fig. 75). My dear friend,
the late Dr. José Leite de Vasconcelos, had seen the inscription when he passed through Moura
on his last philological voyage to Barrancos, but could not give me any details. It was neces-
sary to go to Moura and locate the inscription, after considerable research and adventure, in
an old tower of the alcaçova, now used as a well for drinking water. The adventurous Gascon
photographer, former officer in the French Colonial army, married to a Portuguese lady and
father of seventeen children, was able to take a picture of it (Figs. 16-17). The marble slab
is 32 cm. high by 50 cm. wide, and when complete seems to have consisted of four lines, 44 cm.
by 56 cm. It refers to the conquest of Moura by Al-Mu‘tadid bi ’lläh (1012-69 a.d.), father
of the poet king of Seville, Al-Mu‘tamid ‘alä ’lläh (1040-95 a.d.). The date which doubtless
appeared on the last line was probably 444 h. (1052 a.d.) :

jvAÄjh aJJl [jV*wj]

aJUL? JuöÄxJI [5 joe]

aJJI

i. In the name of God, Compassionate, Merciful! 2. This tower was ordered to be built by Al-
Mu'tadid bi ’lläh 3. [Al-Mans]ür bi-fadli ’llähi Abü ‘Amrin.

IX. faro

In the Museu Archeologico Infante D. Henrique I found three stones with Arabic inscrip-
tions. My friend Dr. Mario Lyster Franco, one of the curators of the museum, kindly placed
at my disposal an extremely interesting work.40 On pages 117 ff. the author spoke about the
“litteratura aladjamiada,” 41 and described the large marble stone which was the only impor-
tant one then stored in the museum. It was found at Silves in 1874, when a road was being

39 Cf. A. R. Nykl, Cronica del Rey Dorn Affomsso
Hamrriquez por Duarte Calväo (Cambridge, 1942).

40 Glossario critico dos principaes uionumentos do
Museu Archeologico Infante D. Henrique, pelo con-
servador Monsenhor Cone go Botto (Faro, 1899), 2 pts.,

I) 79 pp.; the second part, pp. 80-120, was a reprint
from 0 Archeol. port., IV (r8g8), Nos. 1 to 6.

41 Cf. A. R. Nykl, A Compendium of Alajamiado
Literature (Paris-New York, 1929). (Reprint from Re-
vue hispanique) .

i82

A. R. NYKL

built to the new cemetery. He mentioned the three famous natives of the region, Ihn Badrün,42
Ibn 'Ammär,43 and Al-A'lam; 44 he then tried to give a reading of the inscription on what he
called “incontestavelmente urn cippo tumular,” but with little success.

As a matter of fact, the stone is a commemorative one, 96.5 cm. high by 34 cm. wide
above, and 32 cm. below; thickness: 16 cm. above, 14 cm. on the sides. The inscription itself
is 79 cm. high by 28 cm wide, in Neskhi, the most beautiful of all I have thus far found in
Portugal. The name of the builder of the burdj (lines 2-3) was scratched out, possibly as a
result of popular hatred (Fig. 18 ):

j xJJj pMkj

[ 1^* 3 I ( Lâaj yjc I

? cXaê] ^.a/o|]

&AA«lAî ^.j! i

£s-

JJLäj’

aü3î;î t d'A'^vA1 2 \ tz

i. In the name of God, Compassionate, Merciful! May God bless Muhammad and his family!

2. This fort was ordered to be built by... [son?] 3. of the Commander of the Faithful [?], 4. son of
the Caliph, Commander of the Faithful, Ibn 5. Abi Ya‘küb, son of the Caliph, Commander 6. of the
Faithful Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Mu’min 7. Ibn Ali, may God accept his account 8. and may the
Messenger of God be his neighbor on the couches of the Paradise,45 9. in the month of Ramadan, the
exalted one, of the year 10. six hundred and twenty-four.

This corresponds to August, 1227 a.d., fifteen years before the final conquest of Silves by
Alfonso III of Portugal. The Almohade ruler Abü Ya'küb died in 580 h. (1184 a.d.); his
successor, Abü Yüsuf Ya'kub al-Mansür, in 585 h. (1199 a.d.). The first conquest of Silves is
of 1188-89 a.d.; the second, definitive one, of 1242 a.d.

42 Commentator on the famous elegy, Al-Bashä-
ma, of Ibn ‘Abdün ; cf. F. Pons Boigues, Ensayo
bio-bibliogrâ fico sobre los historiadores y geo graf os
arâbigo-espanoles (Madrid, 1898), pp. 190 and 260; A.
R. Nykl, “Die Aftasiden von Badajoz,” Der Islam,
XXVI (1940), 16-48; G. Pereira, Estudos Eborenses
(Evora, n.d.), in Ibn ‘Abdün, No. 31.

43 Al-Mu‘tamid’s friend, cf. R. Dozy, Histoire des
musulmans en Espagne (Leyden, 1932), III, 83 ff.; A.

Cour, “Ibn ‘Ammär,” Encycl. Isläm, II, 361.

44 Abu’l-Hadjdjädj Yüsuf b. Sulaimân al-Shantamari
(410-76 h. [1019-1083 a.d.]); E. Blachère, Abou t-
Tayyib al Motanabbï, (Paris, 1936), p. 296, n. 2, trans-
lated al-A'lam (“l’homme au bec de lièvre”), accord-
ing to C. Brockelmann, “al-A‘lam,” Encycl. Islam, I, 249,
and MacGuckin de Slane, Biographical Dictionary (Ibn
Khallikân) (Paris, 1842-71), IV, 415-17.

45 Allusion to Koran, LXXXIII, 23, 35; LXXVI, 13.

ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS IN PORTUGAL

183

The two other stones are of much less importance. They seem to belong to an older
period, 400 to 500 h. One is in black schist and is badly mutilated {Fig. ip).46 The workman-
ship is rather primitive. The text reads:

i. In the name of God, Compassionate, Merciful. 2. Died: Abdallah 3. Aläd b. Tümarf?] 4. may
God have mercy on him and brighten (yèj) 5. his face, in the year sixty and [probably 400, i.e.,
1067-68 A.D.] .

The second, a thin slab made of the red stone of Silves, seems to have been an appren-
tice’s trial work, since no name or date is mentioned {Fig. 20). The first five lines contain the
well-known fifth verse of sura XXXV. Between lines 1 and 2 there is an interpolation [L^oS"]
“written by.” The end of line 5 and the following two lines could possibly be read:

7. $

All of this has the appearance of a mere exercise without any definite aim in view.

46 Dr. Mario Lyster Franco told me that this stone Marim. Cf. A. R. Nykl, “Algunas inscripciones ârabes

was brought to the Museum in June, 1896; it was found de Portugal,” Al-Andalus, V (1940), 408, n. x.

near the banks of the river Odeleite, concelho de Castro

NOTES

A TOMBSTONE OF THE TIMURID PERIOD IN THE
GARDNER MUSEUM OF BOSTON *

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum of
Boston possesses a tombstone (Fig. i) which is
little known to students of Islamic art and which
has not appeared in any publication on Islamic
art or epigraphy.1 I shall describe the tombstone,
suggest a reconstruction, discuss its date and
provenance as far as the present state of our
knowledge allows, and suggest a possible owner
of the tomb.

The dark gray stone (limestone or marble?)
is 1. 1 73 m. long and 0.36 m. wide.2 The top end
has the following inscription in Neskhi (Fig.

2) :

tXsäJ Hyxj adJl SjfiJ ^0

LôjJ!

This is the tomb of him whom God has exalted by
the glory of martyrdom after a life of abundance in the
world through leadership and the caliphate; and he is
the sultan. . . .3

The rest has been erased.

The front side bears a Kufic inscription (Fig.

3) :

Ä-U

Wisdom (or Judgment?) is to God. (Cf. sura XII,

66.)

* I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Mor-
ris Carter, director of the Gardner Museum, for his per-
mission to publish the stone, and to each person men-
tioned in this article for his friendly assistance.

1 It was acquired from Mihram Sirvadjian of Paris
through Mr. Ralph Curtis in 1901. How the stone found
its way to Paris is not disclosed by its former owner.
In a letter dated August 8, 1901, to Mrs. Gardner, Mr.
Sirvadjian stated: “I possess a truly remarkable work
of sculpture of the best Arab art, in gray stone, dating
from the beginning of the fifteenth century and proceed-
ing from a mosque in Boccara. The sculpture is belong-
ing to Sultan Behadin, grandfather of Tamerlane.” That
this information is contradictory will be shown later.

This is repeated on both sides where yJUi-

“He is exalted” is added to the Kufic inscrip-
tion (Fig. 4): 4

The main side is decorated with two panels,
the smaller of which bears the Kufic inscription,
set against a background of rather realistic flow-
ers cut on a lower plane. The design of the main
panel (Fig. 1) is based on the tree of life and is
set within a horseshoe arch which is formed by
a cloud band. The central stem of the tree of
life is broken up into a succession of composite
palmettes from which stem most of the branches.
These branches wind clockwise and counter-
clockwise alternatingly and end in full and half
palmettes. This design is also set against a flow-
ery background cut on a lower plane. Both pan-

2 Before the stone was removed from its site,
it was deeper and longer. The approximate depth
can be estimated from the crown of the horseshoe arch
of one of the large side panels (Fig. 5). A vertical line
drawn from this point to the edge measures 16. 1 cm. If
a symmetrical design be assumed, the full depth of the
stone would be 32.2 cm. If this is checked against the
top and it is assumed that there are four lines to the
inscription and that the border once framed four sides
in equal width, the following figures are obtained: border,
top, and bottom, 12.8 cm.; inscription, 20.0 cm.; total,
32.8 cm. Compared with the figures gathered from the
side panels, there is a possible margin of error of 6 mm.

If it is assumed that there are three small and two
large side panels in alternating order, the stone would be
approximately the size of a man. Then the following
measurements are obtained: outer border, 7.00 cm.;
small panel, 11.25 cm.; border, 6.2 cm.; large panel,

49.3 cm.; border, 6.00 cm.; small panel, 11.2 cm.; bor-
der, 6.1 cm.; panel, 19.00 cm.; total, 117.35 cm.

To this should be added: lost part of panel (8),

30.3 cm.; small panel, 11.25 cm.; outer border, 7.00 cm.;
total, 54.50 cm.; grand total, 171.85 cm.

I am indebted to Miss Edith M. Spellman of the
Gardner Museum staff for checking the measurements.

3 Read by N. A. Faris and the author.

4 Read by H. W. Glidden and G. Miles.

NOTES

els are framed by a border of rather realistic
flowers, resembling peonies and lotus. On the
surfaces of the two sides are panels of different
sizes of which the larger one is filled by an in-
scription; the smaller ones contain floral orna-
ment within a multifoil arch. Most of these are
badly damaged. The border of these panels
forms a most intricate design of three intermit-
tent undulating vines formed by freely ab-
stracted palmettes (Fig. 4). Similar palmettes
appear on the top side of the stone.

One cannot help being impressed by the rare
beauty of technical execution of this work of art.
All parts are so well spaced that they form an all-
over, lacelike pattern. Realistic flowers with
their origin in the Far East and abstract Iranian
patterns are welded into a harmonious whole by
a most subtle carving technique, precise, crisp,
yet rich in forms. It is a technique which seems
to derive from wood carving.

Upon looking at the decoration of the stone,
anyone familiar with Islamic art will be re-
minded of the famous carved wooden door from
Kokand, now in the Metropolitan Museum in
New York (Fig. 7). 5 The same space filling,
flat carving is prevalent in both pieces; many
motifs are similar, and the same fusion of realis-
tic and abstract styles is present in both pieces.
Martin’s fifteenth-century date for the door is
generally accepted, and Deniké in the article
quoted below has shown how well it fits into the
work of the school of woodcarving of eastern
Turkestan. A closer comparison, however, is
with a tombstone from Afghanistan, published by
Donald N. Wilber (Fig. 8). 6 It is in the shrine

5 Formerly in the collection of C. J. Lamm. See J.
Breck, “A Carved Wooden Door from Turkestan,” Bull.
Metropolitan Mus., XVIII (1923), 130-31- For a dis-
cussion of this style of woodcarving see F. R. Martin,
Türen aus Turkestan (Stockholm, 1897), and B. Deniké,
“Quelques monuments de bois sculpté au Turkestan
Occidental,” Ars Islamica, II (1935), 69-83.

6 D. N. Wilber, “The Institute’s Survey of Persian

Architecture. Preliminary Report of the Eighth Season

of the Survey,” Bull. Amer. Instit. Iranian Art and

IBS

of Khwadja Abd Allah Ansär! near Herat. The
comparison is so close that there can be no doubt
that both tombstones came from the same work-
shop. Owing to difficult working conditions the
inscriptions were not completely copied. They
were read by Glidden and Miles and contain
neither a date nor a personal name. Thus can
be established the important fact that the tomb
must have come out of the famous Herat work-
shop,7 which, under the Timurids and Safavids,
brought forth carved tombstones much admired
by travelers.8

Archeol., II (1937), 126. Photograph courtesy of the
Institute of Iranian Art and Archeology.

7 There is, however, another possibility: the stone
might have been executed in Herat and then sent to
some locality other than Herat to decorate a sanctuary;
the Timurids built numerous sanctuaries.

8 A good description without illustrations in J. P.
Ferrier, Caravan Journeys (London, 1857), p. 177. See
also 0. von Niedermeyer and E. Diez, Afganistan (Leip-
zig, T924), and R. Byron, “Timurid Monuments in
Afghanistan,” Mem. je Congrès internationale d’art et
d’archéol. iranien (Moscow, 1939), pp. 36 ff. C. E. Yate,
Northern Afghanistan (Edinburgh, 1888), pp. 30 ff. As
to the epigraphy of these monuments, the most exhaus-
tive study has been made by C. E. Yate in his “Notes
on the City of Herat,” Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, LVI
(1887), 84-106. He published the texts and translations
of some twenty inscriptions, but none of them seems to
be complete. N. Khanikoff in “Lettre à M. Reinaud.”
Journ. asiatique, XV (i860), 537-43, merely gives the
names and death dates recorded on nine tombs in the mu-
sallâ and five at Gazirgah, not the full text or transla-
tion. An inscription, not read by Yate, was published by
M. Mohun Lai, a brief description of Herat in the Journ.
Asiatic Soc. Bengal, III (1834), 12 , corrected by
J. Horovitz, “A List of the Published Muhammadan In-
scriptions in India,” Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica (Cal-
cutta, 1909-10), p. 94. As to photographed monu-
ments: Outside of the tomb photographed by Wilber,
there are only three others known to me, all of them
unpublished. Two of them were kindly shown to me by
A. U. Pope. They were taken on one of his expeditions
for the architectural survey of Iran. Inscriptions on
these stones were not recorded. Of considerable im-
portance is the tombstone of Bäikarä, son of Omar
Sheikh, son of Timur. Its inscription was partly read by
Yate in his “Notes on the City of Herat,” mentioned

i86

NOTES

These stones give an idea of the original size
of the Gardner Museum stone. They rest on
very low flat slabs and are about six feet long,
or about the same size the Gardner stone must
have been before it was broken in two. Ferner 9
gave the size of Gawhar Shäd’s tomb as six and
one-half feet long, one and one-half feet wide,
and two feet high.

While these stones give the provenance of
the Gardner stone, the date must be found out-
side of Herat.

In the Masdjid-i-DiunTa at Isfahan are sev-
eral alabaster colonettes which decorate the en-
trance to the four Iwäns (Fig. 6). 10 The stylistic
proximity to the Herat tomb photographed by
Wilber and to the Gardner tombstone is star-
tling. All three agree closely in the structure of
ornament and in the crisp, minute carving to
such an extent that it must be assumed that there
is a proximity in time as well.

The colonette can be dated, for it must be

above. It bears the date 843 h. (1439 a.d.). Byron
photographed it and sent a copy to Mr. Carter, of the
Gardner Museum, who kindly lent it to me. The de-
sign of this tomb lacks the restraint of our stone; its
carving is deeper. The date 1439 on the tomb is, accord-
ing to Yate, the date of Bäikarä’s death. The stone
could have been executed later. Bäikarä was a rebel
against Shah Rukh and died in exile. It is not impos-
sible that the tomb was made at the request of Bäikarä’s
famous grandson, Abu ’1-GhäzI Husain Bäikarä, who died
in 1506. Under these conditions it would seem imprudent
to use the date of this tomb in connection with the
Gardner stone. A fair illustration of the Bäikarä tomb
appears in K. Ziemke, Als deutscher Gesandter in
Afghanistan (Stuttgart, 1939), p. 209. I owe this refer-
ence to R. Frye. It might not be amiss to mention here
a tombstone from Merv, dated 907 h. (1501 a.d.) and
mentioned briefly by A. V. Zhukovski, “Ruins of Old
Merv,” Materials for the Archeology of Russia (St.
Petersburg, 1894), PI. VIII. It is a poor, provincial copy
of the Herat style.

9 Op. cit., p. 177. In a letter Byron refers to some
measurements which he did on the spot. They coincide
roughly with those made by Ferrier.

10 The photograph of one of them (Neg. Nos.
Li 51.10) has been kindly loaned to me by Myron B.
Smith.

part of the restoration of 1475-76, executed by
Uzun Hasan soon after his great victory over
the combined forces of Abü Sa‘id the Timurid
and Hasan Ali of the Black Sheep Turkomans.11
The inscription was published by Godard.12 It
does not refer to any specific parts of the
mosque, but Godard proved convincingly that
the tile revetments of the southwest façade are
part of this restoration. The colonette must cer-
tainly be of fifteenth-century date. The only
other restoration undertaken in the fifteenth
century (851 h. [1447 a.d.]) was confined to
the “salle d’hiver.” 13 Myron B. Smith wrote me
on this question:

I am under the impression that this alabaster dado
(of which the colonette is a part) is pre-Safavid, for no
other reason than because Shah Abbas the Great wanted
to remove these stones and use them in his Masdjid-i-
Shäh. Just how long before the Safavids would be hard
to establish, but it will be perfectly safe to assume that
the dado dates with the tile revetments above it.

Mr. Smith referred to the title revetments of the
southwest façade dated 1475-76 by Godard.

How can an explanation be made of the sud-
den appearance of colonettes in the Herat style
in Isfahan, which was then enemy territory? It
seems that Uzun Hasan, who was much less cul-
tured than were the Timurids, did everything in
his power to draw experienced artisans to his
court. Furthermore, Khwändamlr recorded a
specific instance when the artisans left Herat en
masse at the time of the occupation of Herat by
Yädkär, son of Miränshäh, a great-grandson of
Shah Rukh, while the legitimate ruler, Abu ’1-
Ghàzî Husain Bäikarä, was busy fighting Uzun
Hasan (in 1469). 14

II W. Hinz, Irans Aufstieg zum Nationalstaat (Ber-
lin-Leipzig, 1936), pp. 58-61.

12 “Historique du Masdj.id-é Dium‘a d’Isfahän,”
Athâr-é Iran, I, (1936), 246 ff. and 280.

13 For an inscription see ibid., pp. 245-46.

14 Price, op. cit., p. 636. (Yädkär indulged in wine
and music) “and of his state of delirious indulgence his
tyrannical and licentious followers took the usual ad-
vantage of exercising every species of violence and in-
justice on the unfortunate inhabitants of his govern-

Fig. i — Main Side of Tombstone. Boston
Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum

Fig. 2 — View of Top

Photograph, Courtesy, Gardner Museum

Fig. 3 — Upper Part of Main Side
Tombstone, Boston, Gardner Museum

Tombstone. Boston, Gardner Museum for Islamic Culture and art

Fig. 6 — Colonette, Masd.tid-i-Djum‘a, Isfahan

Photograph, Courtesy, Metropolitan Museum

Fig. 7 — Wooden Door from Kokand. New
York, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fig. 8 — Tombstone from the Shrine of
Khwädja Abd Allah Ansârî Near Herat

NOTES

187

Thus a possible date has been established,
ca. 1470-75, and a probable 1S locality, Herat.
The name of the deceased remains to be estab-
lished. It is carefully erased on the inscription.
Only the title, sultan, remains. In a supplement
it has been pointed out that the inscription may
seem at first glance to refer to a secular ruler,
since he is called sultan and caliph. One might
easily think of Abü Sa‘id, who was killed by
Uzun Hasan in 1469 a.d., or close to the con-
jectured date of the stone. In the fifteenth cen-
tury, heads of religious orders were also called
sultan and caliph. How difficult it is to decide
between the two possibilities is pointed out in
the supplement. The term ri’äsa, “headship/’
however, decides the issue definitely in favor of
a religious leader. It is never, to my knowledge,
used as an epithet for a secular ruler.

Perhaps it would not be amiss to offer a pos-
sible hypothesis which would have to be checked
later. The dealer’s letter claimed that the tomb-
stone came from a mosque in Bokhara and be-
longed to “Behadin,” the grandfather of Timur.
Timur’s grandfather is called Burkel in the in-
scription of Timur’s tomb in Samarkand. Never-
theless, the dealer’s letter sounds more like a
garbled version of facts than it does like a fig-
ment of his imagination. Could this possibly be
a reference to Muhammad ibn Muhammad
Bahä’ al-Dïn al-Bukhär! Nakshbandï (1317-
89), the founder of the Nakshbandï order? Ac-
cording to Vâmbéry 16 he was buried near Bok-
hara and a sanctuary was erected in his honor
by Abd al-Aziz Khan in 1490. Abd al-Aziz

ment, so that, unable to support the enormous exactions
levied upon the hard-earned wages of industry the whole
body of artisans and useful mechanics betook them-
selves to the last alternative of leaving the country of
their birth and the tombs of their fathers.”

15 Probable, not because there is any doubt about
the tomb’s Herat style, but because of the possible
spread of the Herat style to other centers.

16 Travels in Central Asia (New York, 1865), p. 211,
note.

Khan reigned, however, from 1645 to 1680. 17
Could it not be assumed that at some time under
Husain Bäikarä a sanctuary was erected for
Bahä’ al-Dïn? When Abd al-Aziz Khan erected
or restored the tomb, the old Timurid stone,
broken in two, might have been stored in one of
the mosques of Bokhara and later sold in the
nineteenth century.

To sum up: a stylistic comparison with an
anonymous tombstone in the shrine of Khwädja
Abd Allah Ansârï establishes the fact that the
Gardner Museum tombstone comes from the
famous workshop of the Herat school of stone
carvers. The colonettes of the southwestern ïwan
of the Masdjid-i-Djum‘a give a date of ca.
1475 a.d. or a period when poetry and the arts
were flourishing and Herat was a center of cul-
ture.18

It is to be hoped that it will be possible in
the not too distant future to study the numerous
tombstones in sanctuaries near Herat and in
other parts of Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkestan.
In a study of these works of art this stone will
certainly take a prominent place as the first one
that has been studied in its entirety.

A ppendix

As the tombstone does not bear a name it
seems necessary to investigate the meaning of
certain technical terms used in the fifteenth cen-
tury, in order to find out whether such terms as
sultan, caliph, and rawdat apply to secular rulers
or to religious leaders. By means of such an in-
vestigation it can be decided at least to which
of these two categories the owner of the tomb-
stone belonged. Only after the category is estab-
lished is it possible to make further deductions
about the person buried under the tombstone.

17 Encycl. Isläm (Leyden-London, 1934), IV, 777.

18 For a vivid description of the period see W. Bar-
thold, “Herat unter Husein Baiqara, dem Timuriden,”
Abh. für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXII (1937).
Reviewed by D. N. Wilber, Ars Islamica, VII (1940),
118-19, who quoted L. Bouvat, “Essai sur la civiliza-
tion timuride,” Journ. asiatique, CCXVII (1926), 262 £f.

1 88

NOTES

i. Rawda. Among the words most frequently
used for tomb on tombstones in Iran and its east-
ern border countries are: kabr,19 markad,20 mad-
fän,21 darikh,22 maddja',23 and burhän.24 Raw-
da is less frequent and means, to quote Rehatsek:
“Literally a garden, but usage has in all Muham-
madan countries, as well as in India, assigned to
it the signification of a mausoleum surrounded by
a garden or park.” 25

Rawda was first applied to the prophet’s
tomb, after Walîd I had built a pentagonal wall
around it and some other holy tombs.26 The
term became later applied to other sanctuaries.27
Many travelers have reported that throughout
Iran and Afghanistan the tombs of holy men
were surrounded by gardens.28 Among the in-

19 “Grave,” from kabara to bury. Used on all in-
scriptions published by G. C. Miles in his “Epitaphs
from an Isfahan Graveyard,” Ars Islamica, VI (1939),

151-57-

20 N. Khanikoff, “Inscriptions musulmans du Cau-
case,” Journ. asiatique, XX (1862), 132.

21 M. van Berchem, “Architecture,” Encycl. Islam,
I, 424.

22 Ibid.

23 P. M. Sykes, “Historical Notes on Khorasan,”
Journ. Royal Asiatic Soc., 1910, p. 1140.

24 Ibid.

25 Mir Khâwand, Rawdat as-Safâ’, ed. by E. Rehat-
sek (London, 1891), I, 11.

26 J. Pedersen, “Masdjid,” Encycl. Isläm, III, 323,
quoting F. Wüstenfeld, “Das Gebiet von Medina,” Abh.
d. kgl. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch., XVIII (Göttingen,
1873), 66 ff., 72 ff., 78 ff., 89.

27 For the use of this word by numerous authors
(Ibn Djubair, Ibn Batüta, and others) see R. Dozy,
Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes (Leyden, 1881).
Dozy proved by quoting Arab authors that E. T.
Quatremère in his Rashid al Din Fadl Allah ( Histoire
des Mongoles de la Perse [Paris, 1835]) was wrong in
saying that this word (rawda) did not receive its mean-
ing of tomb before getting into Persian.

28 To quote just a few: Charles Masson, Narrative
of Various Journeys in Baluchistan, Afghanistan, the
Panjab and Kalat (London, 1844), II, 283, speaking
about Bagh Khoja, a ziyaret near Kabul: “One of them
(gardens) in which is the tomb of a saint of the Shiahs,
is of repute, as being entirely laid out as a flower gar-

scriptions of tombstones near Herat read by
Yate, rawda appears only once, i.e., on the tomb
of the saint Khwädja Abd Allah Ansârï :

. . . . . KA, J ^ J2

.... welcome to the shrine on the ground . . . 29

While rawda ordinarily refers to a sanctuary
or shrine, it sometimes seems to signify, at least
in the fifteenth century, a tombstone. The Per-
sian inscription on the tombstone of Ulugh Beg in
the Gür-ï-Mïr at Samarkand begins:

iXçàoc jjJuc cX-yo ,jj!

Blochet translates: “Ce sepulchre illuminé, ce
mausolée eminent, ce tombeau parfumé. . . .” 30
Ulugh Beg’s tombstone, as well as seven other
tombstones, is in a subterranean vault. There is
no reference any longer to a garden. It is also
important to note that Ulugh Beg was not a holy
person but a secular ruler. The word rawda
thus will not help to decide whether the tomb
was that of a ruler or of a holy man.31

den.” See also, A. Vâmbéry, Travels in Central Asia
(New York, 1865), pp. 233.

29 “Notes on the City of Herat,” under note 6, p. 89.
Rawda occurs also on the following; a tombstone near
Isfahan reads:

^ ILwcXâJÎ

“This is the holy rawda of Sheikh Muhammad Pir
Bakrän.” It is dated 703 h. (1303 a.d.). I am indebted
to E. Herzfeld for this reference. A long inscription in
the sanctuary of Rida Ali in Meshed, written by Bäi-
songhor in 820 h. (1417 a.d.), runs around the inner
walls of the saint’s tomb chamber and begins: “Hadhä
rawda” (Sykes, op. cit., p. 1146).

30 E. Blochet, “Les Inscriptions de Samarkand,”
Revue archeol., XXX (1897), 204.

31 Dozy, op. cit. Article “rawdat” refers to a Spanish
author who applies rawdat to a royal mausoleum at the
Alhambra: “A las espoldas del quarto de los leones,
hacia mediodia, estaba una rauda, à capilla real, donde
tenien sus enteramientes.” L. del Marmol Carvajal,
Historia del rebeliön y castigo de los moriscos (2d ed.;
Malaga, 1797), I, 27. See also the plan of the Alhambra
published by E. Kühnei in Springers Kunstgeschichte
(Leipzig, 1929), VI, 479.

NOTES

189

2. Shahäda. According to E. W. Lane32

shahid not only means that a man died fighting
the infidels but also is applied to one who “dies
of colic, is drowned, burned to death, killed by
a building falling on him. . . . to anyone dying
a violent death.33 This is the meaning given to
shahid and its derivatives in all Timurid tomb-
stones. The tombstone of Ulugh Beg who was
killed by his son is called mashhad,34 and later
on in the inscription it is stated that he died a
martyr: ôSü ,35 Gawhar Shad who was

executed by Abü Sa‘id in 861 h. (1456 a.d.) be-
came a martyr inasmuch as her tomb is called
mashhad in the inscription.36 Thus, the term
shahäda by itself would not exclude Abü Sa‘id
as a possible candidate for the tomb, since he
was executed by Uzun Hasan in 1469 a.d., which
is closer to the established date of the tomb than
is the date of any other Timurid ruler.37

3. Sultan. All great Timurid rulers with the
exception of Timur 38 called themselves sultan,
but this title is also applied to religious leaders.39
It is on the tomb of Abd Allah Mu'äwiya, a de-
scendant of Zainab, daughter of the prophet;

32 An Arabic-English Lexicon (London and Edin-
burgh, 1863-93), I, 610. In the tomb room of the haram
of Meshed is a tile with the following hadlth: “Whoever
is killed from no fault of his own and whoever is killed
away from his family is a martyr.” D. M. Donaldson,
“Significant Mihräbs in the Haram at Mashhad,” Ars
Islamica, II (1935), 124.

33 J. Sauvaget, “La Tombe de l’Ortokide Balak,” Ars
Islamica, V (1938), 213 n. 4. Perhaps this would justify
the attribution of the title shahid to Balak about which
Sauvaget had some doubts.

34 Blochet, op. cit., p. 204.

35 Ibid.

36 Godard, on the other hand, translates twice shahid
merely with “défunt.” “Le soi-distant tombeau de
Täüs,” Athàr-é Irän, I (1936), 60-61.

37 Hinz, op. cit., p. 60.

38 Blochet, op. cit., p. 202. He is called emir on his
tomb.

39 I. Goldziher, Vorlesungen über den Islam (2d ed. ;
Heidelberg, 1925), p. 159.

this tombstone was erected by Sheikh Bäyazld
in 1461 a.d.40

4. Caliph. From Barthold’s masterful expo-
sition of the legal history of the term “caliphate”
it has been found that Timurid as well as other
rulers of this late period assumed the right to
call themselves caliph.41 Epigraphers, however,
are well aware of the fact that the evidence of
coins, tombstones, and seals in manuscripts does
not always coincide. Shah Rukh, according to
Barthold, who quotes Häfiz-i-Abrü, demanded
that an Indian ruler, Khidr Khan, mention him
in the khutba: May God make his realm and
sultanate in the caliphate an eternal one.42 Yet
Shah Rukh did but rarely insist on this title on
his coins,43 and it does not appear among his

40 Yate, “Notes on the City of Herat,” pp. 95 ff.

and 104. icyljLw ySbj

41 Freely translated and supplemented by C. H.
Becker, “Bartholds Studien über Kalif und Sultan,” Der
Islam, VI (1916), 350-402. “Der Idee der erblichen
Macht der Mongolen wurde .... die Vorstellung von
dem Willen Gottes als der unmittelbaren Quelle der
fürstlichen Macht gegenübergestellt. In diesem Sinne
floss der Begriff vom Sultan des Islam mit dem Begriff
von Imam und Khalifen zusammen.”

42 Ibid., p. 381.

43 L. A. Sédillot, “Observations sur un sceau de Shah
Rukh et sur quelques monnaies des Timurides.” Journ.
asiatique, V (1840), 295-3x9. A distinction should be
made between khalifa and khiläfa. The former is never
used on coins by the Timurids. Even of the Shaibäni
only Muhammad uses it. S. Lane-Poole, The Coinage
of Bokhara in the British Museum from the Time of
Timur to the Present Day, ed. by R. S. Poole (London,
1888), XXXVII. Khiläfa is occasionally used in the
benedictory formula which follows the names of the
Timurid princes on the reverse of silver coins:

hXXjo aJJj Adi*.

The more usual formula is:

JCoLk-Lv. 0 &JÜÎ cXTä.

Out of twenty-eight silver coins of Shah Rukh on which
the benedictory formula can still be read, only two in-
clude the term khiläfa. Lane-Poole, op. cit., p. 23, No.
59, dated 821 h.; and p. 30, No. 82, dated 845 h.

NOTES

190

titles quoted by Blochet 44 or on his tombstone.
Ulugh Beg, on the other hand, is called caliph
on his tomb.45 Hypothetically speaking, Abü
Sa'Id’s reign may have been called caliphate,
although the word does not appear on his coins.46

T. W. Arnold points out 47 that khalifa is “a
technical term in the language of the Süfls” and
that “the authorized exponent of some of the re-
ligious orders may be styled khalifa as being
the successor of the founder of the order.” P.
Kahle finds that this term is still being used
in our days: “Unter ihm (the Sheikh al-

Saghghàdï, head of all the Dervishes of Egypt)
steht die grössere oder kleinere Zahl seiner
Stellvertreter-Khalifen.” 48

I have not found the term caliph used on
tombstones of religious leaders; but this is not
surprising, since sanctuaries are not easily ac-
cessible to epigraphers.

5. Ri’äsat (leadership). This word does not
occur on Timurid tombstones known to me. It
is found, however, on the tomb of Khwädja
Yüsuf ibn Kabir, published by Khanikoff,49 and
reads:

This is the Mashhad of the Khwädja, the great ra’is, pure

44 Blochet, op. cit., p. 201, quoting ‘Abd al-Razzâk
Samarkand! and Sharaf al-DIn Ali Yazdi.

45 Blochet, op cit., pp. 204 ff.

j&j

Only a few coins of this prince were in the British Mu-
seum when the catalogue and this supplement were writ-
ten (1882 and 1890). None of them contained the
benedictory formula.

46 Lane-Poole, op. cit., p. 40.

47 The Caliphate (Oxford, 1924), p. 200.

48 “Zur Organisation der Derwisch Orden in Aegyp-
ten,” Der Islam, VI (1916), 149-69.

49 “Inscriptions Musulmans du Caucase,” Journ. asi-
atique, 20 (1862), 119-20. The tomb is from Gumbesi
Atababa in Nakhichevan.

of religion, ornament of Islam, head of the sheikhs Yusuf
ibn Kabir .... (dated Shawwâl 557 h.).

Dozy in his comment on the word ra’is and
its derivatives does not mention any connection
with titles of secular rulers. Ra’is is, according
to Bocthor’s dictionary: “Supérieur des tous les
soufis, ou le plus distingue par mérité entre tous
les soufis du Hidjaz.” 50 Khanikoff’s inscription
is not quoted. The derivative ri’äsat is trans-
lated by Dozy as “doctorate.”

The evidence thus points definitely in the
direction of a leader of a religious order, of which
orders there were at least six in Timurid times.51

Helmut von Erffa

THE KASR KHARÂNA INSCRIPTION OF Ç2 H.

(710 A.D.), A NEW READING

Hitherto three separate attempts have been
made to decipher this early Islamic inscription
since its discovery by B. Moritz in the course of
his journey in Arabia Petraea in 1905-6.1 Mor-
itz gave the first reading, working from the
inscription itself, the upper part of which he de-
scribed as mostly effaced. He deciphered only
three of its eleven lines. But these three con-
tained the name of the inscriber and the date of
the inscription,2 which proved to be one of the
very few extant dated inscriptions of the first

50 E. Bocthor, Dictionnaire (Paris), I, 493 ff.
51 Bouvat, op. cit., p. 272.

1 “Ausflüge in der Arabia Petraea,” Mélanges de la
faculté oriental de Beyrouth (hereinafter referred to as
MFO), III (190S-9), 386-436, especially pp. 420-23;
cf. also A. J. Jaussen and R. Savignac, Mission archéo-
logique en Arabie (herinafter referred to as Mission)
(Paris, 1922), III, 100 n. 1.

2 MFO, III, 422; note lack of apparatus and the
failure of his attempt to give us a photograph of the
inscription, as he tells it in n. x to this page.

NOTES

IÇI

century of Islam.3 Jaussen and Savignac, who
visited the castle in the spring of 1911, were the
next to devote their attention to it. But they too
made only slight headway with the text. They
were, however, more successful in securing a
photograph and in making a tracing of the inscrip-
tion.4 Finally, this inscription and a second one
of three lines placed across the arch from the
first, with which it clearly belongs, took their
places as Nos. 20 and 21 in the Répertoire
chronologique d’ épigraphie arabe? published un-
der the direction of Combe, Sauvaget, and Wiet,
with the collaboration of some twelve or more
outstanding Arabists, some unspecified one or
more of whom, perhaps again Jaussen and Savig-
nac, attempted the third reading. But the text
continued to defy efforts to arrive at anything
near a complete or satisfactory reading.

In view of the great difficulties experienced
thus far in the reading of so early an Islamic in-
scription, and because it has the added distinc-
tion of being one of few early inscriptions known
to have been painted rather than engraved, it,
if for no other than epigraphic and paleographic
interest, challenges and deserves a new reading,
even if that reading is as yet not 100 per cent
perfect or complete. An attempt to secure a new
photograph of the inscription, through the kind
services of Dr. Nelson Glueck, came to naught
because of world war conditions. Having nothing
more to work with than the extremely poor pho-
tograph and tracing given by Jaussen and Sa-
vignac I have had to leave the reading of a few
words uncertain. The present reading is offered
in the hope that someone, with its aid, and per-
haps with the opportunity to work from the in-
scription itself, may be able to clear away the
few uncertainties still remaining {Fig. 1 ).

3 Cf. N. Abbott, The Rise of the North Arabic
Script . . . Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago,
1939), PP- 14 f-

4 Mission, III, 8, 100 f., and Pis. LVII and LVIII.

sVol. I (Cairo, 1931), 18 f; hereinafter referred to

as Répertoire.

J jÀ£.\) y*. dbl*J[l] tXfX [|v]^;[l] p-g-U! »

Loj bo ^yd boj X*Co [*[tXftj']bo P

Vl dll ^yJd L/Oj t"

(jUJI dbli ^-*1 bt Ie

1^7=5

dbLLuwl ^Âj| |%-§-b*t ciöl dbli à

^^-yol Jls |VJ siÿ «JJI v

, ■ dXX+Jl . A ^ ^ ] -b I A

r*7

r-kjM yid yd y-*^-s ôdjJ ^j~yoV[l] 4

yAy U5755 cH [*^ •*

LôjJI ^

Translation

1. Oh my God have mercy on ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Umar
and forgive him

2. his faults, those that are passed and those to come,
those that are hidden and those that are manifest.

3. No one of himself draws nigh unto thee but that
thou forgivest him and hast mercy upon him

4. if he believes. I believe in my Lord. Therefore be-
stow thou on me thy benefits for thou art the Bene-
factor, and have mercy

5. upon me for thou art the Merciful. Oh my God, I
beg of thee to

6. accept from him his prayer and his veneration.
Amen, oh Lord of the worlds! Lord of

7. Moses and Aaron! May God have mercy on him who
reads it then says, Amen! Amen! Oh Lord of

8. the worlds, the Mighty, the Wise! ‘Abd Allah ibn
‘Umar wrote (it) on

IÇ2

NOTES

9. Monday three (nights) remaining from Muharram
of the year two and ninety.

10. Witnessed by Läm ibn Härün. And lead us so we
meet with my prophet and his prophet in this world

11. and the next.

Three lines across from the main inscription:

y+2- oLUl Jujd yiil p

(jà-o ^yo| L[j]jJ| [^]i r

1. In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassion-
ate.

2. Oh my God, grant forgiveness to ‘Abd al-Malik ibn
‘Umar.

3. Nothing molested him in the world and he is safe
even though seized (by death).

The inscription, as one might expect from a
pious invocation of this sort, is rich in Koranic
flavor. Short verbatim quotations alternate with
longer ones somewhat adapted in text and con-
text. That an inscription so rich in such phrases
should have defied decipherment for so long is
due largely to one peculiarity, sometimes more
apparent than real, of its more or less poorly
executed script. This peculiarity is the use of
some unorthodox, and therefore unexpected,
ligatures, especially the ligature of an initial alij
to the last letter of the preceding word. In sev-
eral instances it is clear that the ligature is un-
intentional and that its formation is due to the
use of the alij with the bend to the right at its
lower end, together with the use of a somewhat
extended preceding horizontal stroke to which
this alij appears to be joined. Doubtless, careful
examination of the inscription itself would throw
more light on these irregular ligatures.

It is not always possible to tell if some of the
dots visible in the tracing are meant for diacriti-
cal points. Moritz stated that the käf in line 9
has two strokes below it.6 Jaussen and Savignac

6 MFO, III, 422.

said nothing about either dots or strokes as dia-
critical points, but their tracing shows what
seems to be several dotted nüri s in lines 4 and
5 and also a possible dotted bä’ in of line
10.

Line 1. ‘Abd al-Malik’s last name is to be
read as and not as iWc. The second let-
ter of the name is a medial mim of a type seen
repeatedly in the inscription, for example, in the
words and ; that is, it is a mim

written above rather than on or below the
main line of writing. It should also be noticed
that several of the initial ram’s are so written
above the line. Again, the last letter in the name
is a rä’ and not a dâl; it is similar to many a rä’
in the inscription and is unlike any dal that the
piece offers.

Line 2. Here there is an unexpected ligature
between the wäw and mim of Loj . For the for-
giveness of faults, past and to come, cf. Koran
XLVIII, 2. 7 For the phrase, “the hidden and
the manifest,” see ibid., II, 77; this, with modi-
fications, is frequently found in literary sources.8

Line 3. The reading of is given

with some reservation. There is a remote possi-
bility of the word . In this and the follow-

ing line ‘Abd al-Malik is availing himself of the
Koranic provision in sura VI, 12 and 54.

Line 4. For the Koranic flavor of this pass-
age, cf. suras II, 127 ff.; Ill, 8 and 35. One
should note the twice repeated ligature of an
alij already explained. The reading of
and ,jUJt is offered as the most likely pos-
sibility. The fä’ and mim of the first are almost
certain, and the little visible stroke could well
be that of a final nün. In the second word, the
alij seems joined to the tä’ of oôl ; the läm
needs no comment; the mim here approximates
a triangular form more than the common circular
one; the next alij is clear enough, but the final

7 Cairo, 1928.

8 Cf., for instance, Balädhuri, Ansäb al-Ashräf (Jeru-
salem, 1936-), IV B, 40, 52, 55; V, 24h, 216, 364.

Fig. i — The Kasr Kharäna Inscription of 92

NOTES

193

letter offers some difficulties, since it looks more
like a reversed and dotted yä’ than like a final
nun. Is there an accidental horizontal stroke and
traces only of a final nün? Another, though less
likely suggestion is and .

Line 5. One should note again the apparent
ligature of an initial alif to the last letter of the
preceding word, occurring twice in this line. The
seems to have suffered some damage in

addition to being somewhat involved with the
word above it. The rä’ is, in reality, like most of
the re’s in the inscription; the hä’ is of the form
known as the hä’ with a beam, met again in lines
7 and 10. These letters, however, rä’-hä’ have
formed another of these unexpected ligatures
that characterize the script of the piece.

Line 6. For petitions that Allah accept what
is being offered cf. suras II, 127; III, 34 and 37.
‘Abd al-Malik is here slipping back from the
first person of lines 4 and 5 to the third person
form with which he started his petition. It is
possible that a word, such as or , is

lost here. The tracing gives a very peculiar nün
in ; the photograph, however, shows

some damage to the stone at this point.

Line 7. For the phrase '-?)

cf. suras VII, 12 1 f. and XXVI, 47 f-, where it
and V) are found, as here, together,

and sura XX, 70, where it stands alone but with
the order of the names reversed.9 The hä’-rä’ of
Härün look deceptive. Note the irregular liga-
ture between the mini of 1*^ and the alif of»JJ!.

Line 8. The medial ‘ain of the first two
words, like that of line 6, is an open one, differ-
ing in that respect from the closed ‘ain of lines
9 and 10. Though the yä-zäy of looks

questionable, the reading given is most likely,

9 Cf. also, J. W. Redhouse, “On the Most Comely

Names,” Journ. Royal Asiatic Soc., n.s., XII (1880), 34,

Nos. 203 and 210.

since the phrase (vXU is very com-

mon in and out of the Koran, and other combi-
nations offer even more paleographic difficulties.
The mini of is evidently broken; see note
to line i above.

Line g. Jaussen and Savignac and the Ré-
pertoire (evidently following them) read the
month as sjuud! instead of of Mor-

itz’s reading.10 It is difficult to agree with the
former, since their tracing appears to confirm
Moritz’s reading. The mim is similar to that of
dJUUi ; see note to line 1. The hä’ in the trac-
ing gives some evidence of being a hä’ with a
beam, but with its lower part lost. This is
confirmed from the photographic reproduction
which actually shows a slight downward exten-
sion of the oblique stroke, bringing the mim and
hä’ even closer together than the tracing shows
them to be. Again, the rä’, studied from both the
tracing and the photograph, is similar to the rest
of the rä’ s and is unlike any däl in the entire
inscription, cf. note to line 1 above. Finally, the
last letter is more easily read as a final mim than
as a hä’ or tä’ marbüta, since it has a small final
stroke like other final mini’s in the piece. This
epigraphic evidence is further reinforced by the
fact that the reading of Muharram gives a per-
fect coincidence of the day, Monday, and the
date of the month.11 The method of dating by
the number of the remaining nights of a given
month was a common practice among the
Arabs.12 The exact date of the inscription works
out to Monday, November 24, 710 a.d.

Line 10. The photograph is of no help for
the first half of the line, and the tracing is only
slightly better. It is to be noticed that with the
end of line 9 the inscription is complete and that
anything added by the original writer would be

10 Cf. Mission, III, 102.

11 Ibid.

12 Cf. Sülï, Adah al-Kuttäb (Baghdad, 1922), pp.
180-83.

194

NOTES

of the nature of an afterthought. Next, lines io
and 1 1 start out considerably farther to the right
than do the lines above them. The same writer
would tend to keep the vertical alignment.
Again, the phrase juxjj readily allows,
if it does not actually call for, a second person.
Finally, inscriptions involving more than one per-
son are not uncommon. With so much in favor of
a second person, the first three short vertical
strokes of the line persist in suggesting the shin
of . A hä’ and a good sized däl would ac-

count for the rest of the lacuna leaving no more
than average spacing between it and the next
word. The latter is clearly the proper name
(•V ,13 The reading of might, at first, be
questioned because of the diminutive size of the
second letter, which could be read as rä’ or zäy.
But the piece has other small nan’s, e.g., in
of line 6 or in & of line 9. The reading of the
last name as is encouraged by the looks

of in line 7. There is clearly some cor-

ruption or perhaps scribal confusion at this
point of the text. It seems likely that the scribe,
having written the wäw following, took stock of
his space and, deciding to finish his sentence in
one line, started back in the interlinear space,
yet failed to make it in one line.

For , compare Lane’s Arabic-English

Lexicon . . .H An alternative reading is LU j£\ ,

that is, open for us (our bosoms or minds for the
acceptance of the truth). There is a bare possi-
bility that the last letter of the word is an ‘ain,
giving the likely reading of Ld ^ , that is,
make apparent to us (the truth or the right),
usually used in a religious sense. Whichever of
the three possible readings is preferred the essen-
tial idea is the same, namely, a request for di-

13 Cf. Ibn Duraid, Genealogisch-etymologisches
Handbuch, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Göttingen, 1854), pp.
22g and 233.

14 E. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (London,
1863-93), Book I.

vine guidance so as to assure the meeting with
the prophet. Still another possibility is
U-? though this need not mean that the pe-
titioners are in haste to leave this world, since
pious Moslems always hoped to meet the proph-
et in visions and dreams.

Now comes the consideration of the three
lines across from the main inscription. The first
two lines offer no difficulties, but the third line
has several of these. On the principle of read-
ing the line as much as possible on its actual face
value, it would seem to read:

ta-ö yßj IjjJlj vjis L V

which is, from the content point of view, not sat-
isfactory at all. The reading offered, though call-
ing for more reconstruction of the visible text,
is more in keeping with the general trend of this
type of inscription. An alternative for is

, to stick together closely, to approach or to

be near a person. In either event, the main idea
would seem to be that the cares or the evils of
this world did not get the better of the man. The
substitution of a zä’ for a däd in the last word
is a scribal error easily enough understood.

It is difficult to determine the identity of this
‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Umar. General indices to
literary and historical works covering the Umay-
yad period list no such name, though the field
has by no means been exhausted. For the his-
torical background of the inscription one must,
for the time being, be content with the likely sug-
gestion made by Moritz, namely, that Walïd I, on
his return from the pilgrimage of 91 h., reached
and stopped at Kharàna in Muharram of 92,
and that ‘Abd al-Malik was some (minor?) of-
ficial in that caliph’s retinue.13 Kharäna itself
is of pre-Islamic origin. It was first visited and

15 MFO, III, 422; cf. also M. van Berchem, “Aux
Pays de Moab et d’Edom,” Journ. des savants, 1909, pp.
406 f. and reference cited.

NOTES

195

described by Gray Hill in 1895. 16 Several other
interested visitors followed, including, more re-
cently, Nelson Glueck.17 These have dealt with
the origin, discovery, history, and architecture
of the castle, features with which the present
article is not concerned.18

The epigraphy of the inscription is of special
interest and importance. It is neither like that
of the common graffiti nor is it typical of the
script of the few well-executed specimens of the
first century of Islam. The difference is prob-
ably due, in part at least, to the fact that the
writing was not engraved or incised but “paint-
ed,” that is, written either with the reed pen or
with a brush. The inscription shares this peculi-
arity of being painted with two others definitely
dated from the Umayyad period.19 The first of
these is that of Kusair ‘Amra, listed in the Ré-
pertoire under 100 h. (718 a.d.), and the second
is that of Madina in Upper Egypt, dated 117 h.
(735 a.d.).20 The first of these two, of which
now only four words are preserved, is in well-
executed Kufic script. The second is likewise in
a carefully executed script, but one that I hesi-
tate to designate as Kufic, simple or otherwise.21
It is delicate and graceful in general appearance.
It follows early Koranic practice in the use of
short strokes for diacritical marks. Van Berchem
has already remarked on the resemblance of sev-
eral features of its script to those of Korans and

16 “A Journey East of the Jordan and the Dead Sea,”
Pal. Exploration Fund Quart., 1896, pp. 32 f.

17 See his The Other Side of the Jordan (New Haven,
1940), pp. 38 f.

18 Cf. Répertoire, I, 18 f. for bibliographical refer-
ences for these.

19 One other painted inscription but of later period
is dated 526 h. (1133 a.d.); cf. K. A. C. Creswell,
“Brief Chronology,” Bull, instit. français d’archeol. ori-
ental, XVI (1919), 62 and note 2.

20 Cf. Répertoire, I, 20 f. and 25 (Nos. 23 and 30).

21 For reproductions, see B. Moritz, Arabic Paleaog-
raphy (Cairo, 1905), Pis. 107-10. See also, M. van
Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus inscriptorum arabi-
carum, Egypt (Paris, 1903), I, 693 and Creswell, op.
cit., p. 62, n. 2.

of papyri documents.22 The script of the Kha-
räna piece, poor as it is in execution, bears
marked resemblance to the script of the earliest
dated Arabic papyrus, that of 22 h.,23 and is
probably closer to the script of some papyri
contemporary with or nearer to its own period.
It is, therefore, interesting to note that both this
and the Kharäna inscriptions, different as they
are in individual script style, do nevertheless re-
flect some then current manuscript practice
rather than some purely monumental style.
Other painted but undated early inscriptions
from Kusair ‘Amra point in the same direction.24

The script of the Madina inscription may
hold a clue to the identification of a script,
Koranic or otherwise, that was perhaps even
then in the process of development — one of the
many scripts listed in the Fihrist but as yet un-
identified. Hitherto, no attempt has been made
at a complete publication of this inscription.
This may be because van Berchem dismissed
much of the text as of no particular interest or
significance.23 The inscription is greatly dam-
aged and difficult to decipher. So far it has not
yielded sufficient consecutive text, except for
Koranic passages and some rhymed phrases, to
justify an attempt at publication.

Nabia Abbott

A NOTE ON ISLAMIC ENAMELED METALWORK AND
ITS INFLUENCE IN THE LATIN WEST

Many instances are known of the influence
of East Christian art on the Latin West in the
period of the Crusades, during the twelfth cen-
tury and after the sack of Constantinople early
in the thirteenth century. Specimens of the mi-
nor religious and secular arts of Byzantium
reached western Europe in ever-increasing quan-

22 Van Berchem, op. cit., pp. 695 f.

23 See Abbott, op. cit., PI. IV.

24 Cf. Mission, III, 96-98 and Pis. LV-LVI.

25 Van Berchem, op. cit., p. 693, n. 2.

196

NOTES

tity and became the inspiration of local crafts-
men. Many textiles and objects in precious metal
and glass preserved in western cathedral treas-
ures bear witness to the crusaders’ admiration
for the superior arts and crafts of the Christian
East.1 One knows, too, of the respect and rever-
ence occasionally paid by them to Islamic monu-
ments and institutions.2 But there are practically
no records of Islamic works of art being brought
from Syria to the Latin West; 3 and, except for
Near Eastern textiles,4 the surviving examples
which can be attributed to the zeal of the cru-
saders are not very numerous. The purpose of
this short note is to draw attention to a distinc-
tive group of western objects which owes its ori-
gin to the influence of Islamic metalwork. The
conclusions which can be drawn from this are of
far-reaching importance for the history of Is-
lamic art.

It is now generally recognized that Limoges
was a most important center for the production
of enamels during the Middle Ages;5 and it seems
that the fabrication of enameled gemellions was
the prerogative of the ateliers of that town dur-
ing the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.
Gemellions were copper basins for the washing
of the hands, used for liturgical as well as for
secular purposes,6 and were so called because
they were used in pairs. Some forty or fifty speci-

1 Cf. J. Ebersolt, Orient and Occident, Recherches
sur les influences byzantines et orientales en France pen-
dant les croisades (Paris-Bruxelles, 1929).

2 Cf., eg., R. Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du
royaume franc de Jerusalem (Paris, 1936), III, 278 f.,
315 f-

3 There is no concern here with Islamic influences
reaching Europe from Sicily or Spain. On this subject
cf. W. L. Hildburgh, Medieval Spanish Enamels (Lon-
don, 1936), Chap. IV.

4 Cf., e.g., G. Robinson and H. Urquhart, “Seal Bags
in the Treasury of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury,”
Archaeologia, LXXXIV (1935), 164 ff.

s Cf. M. C. Ross, “De opere Lemoviceno,” Speculum ,
XVI (1941), 453-

6 Cf. J. Braun, S J., Das Christliche Altargerät (Mün-

chen, 1932), p. 545.

mens are preserved in European and American
collections.7 Except for their figurai decoration,
they vary little, each having a flat base from
which the sides curve up to a narrow edge.8 The
decoration of the interior of the basins is set
against a background of symmetrical spiraling
vine ornaments which are practically identical in
character throughout the group, except for some
slight development in the forms of the vine leaves
that makes the later pieces easily recognizable as
works of the fourteenth century. A typical ex-
ample which should be attributed to the second
half of the thirteenth century has recently been
acquired by the Detroit Institute of Arts ( Fig.
i).9 The central medallion shows a falconer on a
prancing steed, carrying his bird on his right
hand. The upward curving wall is covered with
six interlocking circles cut off by the central
medallion to form six interlaced lobes. Mr. Rob-
inson, in his publication of the piece, has rightly
pointed out the Gothic character of the design as
a whole and of the figure decoration; students
of Islamic art, however, will in addition observe
the great similarity existing between the gemel-
lion and the only example of Islamic enameled
metalwork known to me, e.g., the magnificent cop-
per dish made for the Ortokid prince of Amida
and Hisn Kaifä, Dä’üd ibn Sukmän (died 1144
a.d.), in the Museum Ferdinandeum at Inns-
bruck (Fig. 2). 10

The Ortokid dish, of a shape nearly identical

7 A catalogue of all the gemellions known to him has
been compiled by E. Rupin, L’Oeuvre de Limoges (Paris,
1890), p. 549. Since then about a dozen more speci-
mens have become available for study.

8 Cf. the summary by M. C. Ross, “Enamelled Gé-
mellion of Limoges,” Bull, Fogg Art Mus., II (1932),
9-I3-

9 Cf. F. W. Robinson, “A Limoges Enamelled Gé-
mellion,” Bidl. Detroit Instit. Arts, XXII (1943), 26 f.

10 The bibliography of the Ortokid dish is quoted in
L. A. Mayer, “A Glass Bottle of the Atâbak Zangi,”
Iraq, VI (1939), 101. And the color plate in A. Riegl,
Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie nach den Funden in
Oesterreich-Ungarn, Teil 2, Kunstgewerbe des frühen
Mittelalters (Wien, 1923), PI. XLVIII.

Courtesy, Detroit Institute of Arts

Fig. i — Gemellion, from Limoges. Detroit Institute
of Arts

Fig. 2 — Dish. Northern Mesopotamia (?). Innsbruck
Museum Ferdinandeum

Fig. 3 — Bronze Mirror from Persia. London, Victoria
and Albert Museum

Courtesy, British Museum

Fig. 4 — Gemellion, from Limoges(?). London, British
Museum

After Mayer. Courtesy, Clarendon Press

Fig. 5 — Handwarmer. Islamic work, from Egypt(?)
Florence, Museo Nazionale

Courtesy, Victoria and Albert Museum

Fig. 6 — Gemellion, from Limoges. London, Victoria
and Albert Museum

NOTES

197

with that of the gemellions, shows the ascension
of Alexander in the interior central medallion.
Around it are grouped six circles with eagles,
griffins, and lions; between them alternate palm
trees and dancing girls.11 Except for the central
medallion, a corresponding decoration is on the
exterior of the dish: six medallions with the same
animals, palm trees, and dancing girls between
them. The whole body of the dish is covered in-
side and outside with spiraling vine ornament.

The similarity between the general layout and
the decoration of the two pieces is obvious: the
central medallion surrounded by six circles all
decorated with figurai motifs, the vine ornaments
of an almost identical character against which
the figures are set, the narrow rim which carries
the inscription on the Islamic piece, and a saw-
tooth pattern which has replaced the inscription
on the gemellion. Even the dancing girls, “one
of the most popular subjects in the figurative art
of Arabic-speaking countries,” 12 appear on both
objects, though in one instance between the outer
medallions, in the other filling the outer circles
themselves. The falconer, too, though not on the
Qrtokid dish, is a well-known motif in the Islamic
East, where it occurs on innumerable pieces of
pottery and on examples of other minor arts. On
a Persian bronze mirror of the thirteenth cen-
tury, for instance, it occupies the central medal-
lion, as on the gemellion {Fig. j).13 Thus, it is
reasonable to assume that the artist of the Detroit
piece worked in a place where he was able to
study an Islamic enameled copper dish very simi-
lar to the Innsbruck specimen.

It may be mentioned that the influence of

11 The decorative scheme of the dish seems to be
Sasanian in origin, cf. J. Orbeli and C. Trever, Orfèvrerie
sasanide (Moscou-Leningrad, 1935), PI. 29.

12 Cf. Mayer, op. cit., p. 101 ; R. Ettinghausen,
“Painting in the Fatimid Period: a Reconstruction,” Ars
Islamica, IX (1942), 115 f.

13 R. Harari, “Metalwork after the Early Islamic Pe-
riod,” A Survey of Persian Art, ed. by A. U. Pope and
P. Ackerman (London and New York, 1939), VI, PI.
1301 c.

Islamic metalwork is quite as obvious in the
small group of Limoges gemellions whose decora-
tion is mainly heraldic. They show a shield with
a blazon in the central medallion and six medal-
lions around the body, containing either blazons
or human figures {Fig. 4). These gemellions re-
peat a type of Islamic object as represented, for
instance, by a handwarmer of the late thirteenth
century, preserved in Florence, with an escutch-
eon in the center and figured motifs in six me-
dallions around the body {Fig. 5). 14

The earliest known Limoges gemellion is
mentioned in an inventory of Rochester Cathe-
dral as having been given in the time of Bishop
Gilbert de Glanville, who died in 1214 a.d.15 But
no such early works are preserved. Most gemel-
lions of which reproductions are available date
from the second half of the century. With very
few exceptions the character of the decoration
is so similar that it is quite possible that all, or
most of them, were made in one single atelier,
though the examples known cover a period of at
least two generations. The Detroit gemellion
should be classed among the earlier works of the
group. In course of time, the developed Gothic
style transforms the details of the decoration:
the interlocking circles are reduced from six to
four — the Gothic quatrefoil — and the figures be-
come more expressive in their curved outlines, the
vine scrolls more irregular, and the leaves more
pointed and schematic. The gemellion of the Vic-
toria and Albert Museum, for instance, is cer-
tainly one of the later products of this atelier
{Fig. 6).

The connections here traced throw a new light
on the importance of the Ortokid dish in the his-
tory of Islamic craftsmanship. It happens to be
the only work of its kind which has been pre-
served; but the influence of Islamic enamel on the
artists of Limoges proves beyond doubt that in

14 L. A. Mayer, Saracenic Heraldry (Oxford, 1933),
PI. XVII.

15 Cf. Ross, op. cit., p. 11, and idem, “De opere
Limoviceno,” p. 453.

198

NOTES

its time it cannot have been an isolated piece.16
It is only one representative example of the prod-
ucts of a school of craftsmen which must have
worked in Islamic countries, probably in northern
Mesopotamia, and of whose work several pieces
must have been brought to France by the crusad-
ers. They gave the idea of enameled gemellions to
the craftsmen of Limoges, who adhered rather
closely to their models in the general organiza-
tion and subject matter of their works.

The art of enameling metal must have reached
Mesopotamia from Constantinople. The Byzan-
tine sources of the subject matter and the tech-
nique of the Ortokid dish are well established.17
It is a strange coincidence that in this instance
the Byzantine influence which dominates in the
western minor arts of the early Gothic period
should have reached France through the inter-
mediary of Islam. It is to be hoped that one day
some lucky chance will lead to the discovery of
more objects of this particular Islamic school and
thus extend our knowledge of enamel in Mu-
hammadan countries.

Hugo Buchthal

egypto-arabic textiles in the

MONTREAL MUSEUM

In the Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal
there are six fragments of textiles from Islamic
Egypt before the Mameluke period. The first of
these {Fig. i ) probably dates to the late eighth
or early ninth century, in the transitional period
which took place in Egypt between its conquest
by the Arabs in 641 a.d. and the beginning of the
Tulunid period in 868 a.d. It is a fine bold piece

16 On Islamic works in the same technique, though
of later date and of a different character, cf. M. C. Ross,
“Egypto-Arabic Cloisonné Enamel,” Ars Islamica, VII
(1940), 165-67.

17 Cf. 0. v. Falke, “Kupferzellenschmelz im Orient
und in Byzanz,” Monatshefte }. Kunstwissensch., 2
(1909), 324 ff., and Mayer, op. cit., p. 102.

of tapestry weaving, in wool on a linen ground,1
and it is made up of two horizontal rectangular
medallions from a tunic, which have been cut
out and sewn together in recent years. The base
of each medallion is a band of brown wool,
spiked with vivid green and yellow lozenges,
from which grow tidily spaced lotus flowers,
miniature trees, and trefoils. The drawing is
clear and intelligible, though rather coarse, and
the bright colors, dark blue, red, yellow, green,
and warm brown, have a deep stained-glass
quality.

The design, though Graeco-Roman in inspi-
ration, is in keeping with other early Islamic
decoration from Egypt. In the Arab Museum in
Cairo,2 the Louvre and the collection of Pfister
in Paris,3 and the Museum of Fine Arts in Bos-
ton,4 there are other pieces of Graeco-Roman
inspiration with the same simple and neat treat-
ment of brilliant color. It is on the basis of their
dye that Pfister, of the Musée Guimet in Paris,
has dated them to the century or two after the
Arab conquest, when lac dye (an extraction from
the secretions of the shield louse),5 which was
imported from India, had largely supplanted
madder, indigenous to Egypt, as red dyestuff,
because of its splendid strong color.

1 Measurements : .36 by .1 (as mounted). All meas-
urements are given in meters.

2 Cf. Exposition des tapisseries et tissus du Musée
Arabe du Caire, du Vile au XVIIe siècle, période Musul-
mane (Paris, 1935), Pis. IV and V.

3 Cf. R. Pfister, “Matériaux pour servir au classe-
ment des textiles égyptiens postérieurs à la conquête
arabe,” Revue des arts asiatiques, X (1936), x— 16 ; 73-
85-

4 Particularly, Figs. 13 and 14 in: N. P. Britton,
A Study of Some Early Islamic Textiles in the Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1938), Figs. 22 and 23,
from Upper Egypt, are also related.

5 Cf. Pfister, op. cit., p. 5. Cf. also A. Leix, “Early
Islamic Textiles,” Ciba Review (Soc. Chem. Industry
in Basle, Switzerland), 1942, pp. 1573-78, Figs. p. 1575.
The Montreal pieces have not been analyzed for dye
content, and it is only my opinion that Fig. 1 contains
lac dye.

Fig. i — Eighth to Ninth Century

Fig. 2 — The Fayoum, Ninth to Tenth Century

Fig. 3 — Middle of the Tenth Century

Figs. 1-3 — Egypto-Arabic Textiles. Montreal, Museum

Fig. 6 — Middle of the Twelfth Century

NOTES

199

From this group it can be seen that the use
of varicolored lozenges or squares, and of lotus
flower and trefoil motifs is not uncommon. The
same type of motif on austerely decorated bands
also appears in a few eighth- or ninth-century
Egyptian wood carvings. One eighth-century
panel in the Metropolitan Museum has been
published by Dimand.6 It is embossed with a
line of palmettes and pine cones, without the in-
tricate background decoration of the traditional
Islamic wood carving. Another interesting anal-
ogy is to a severely carved wooden wall pier in
the Mosque of ‘Amr at Fustät, published by
Creswell.7 This panel is important, since it is
also Hellenistic in style, and definitely pre-
Tulunid in date; yet its date must be put later
than 827 a.d., since before that time the Mosque
of ‘Amr did not extend to this part of the site.
The radiating lines of the Fustät panel superfi-
cially suggest the unusual treatment of the tree
branches in this first Montreal textile.

Mrs. George D. Pratt has given the Montreal
Museum 8 a pair of well-preserved tapestry
bands (Fig. 2 ) of the Faiyum class, made in the
ninth or tenth century. These are good examples
of the peculiar archaic Faiyum calligraphy with
its triangles and barbed hooks. The inscriptions
probably contain pious formulae.9 The design
consists of narrow black or dark blue lines en-
closing letters of uncolored linen filled with
splashes of dark blue and green wool. The field

6 Cf. M. S. Dimand, “Some Aspects of Omaiyad and
Early ‘Abbâsid Ornament,” Ars Islamica, IV (1937),
308, Fig. 14.

7 Cf. K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture
(Oxford, 1932-40), II, No. 184, Fig. 162, and PI. 42(b).

8 The other Montreal textiles mentioned were pur-
chased by the Museum, with the exception of Fig. 1,
which was a gift of the Canadian Handicrafts Guild.

9 R. Ettinghausen suggested that one word in the

upper inscription may be “Muhammad” in mirror writ-
ing. C. J. Lamm has published a textile from the Faiyum

with an inscription in mirror writing (cf. C. J. Lamm,

“Some Woolen Tapestry Weavings from Egypt in
Swedish Museums,” Le Monde Oriental, XXX [1936],

76, No. 59 and PI. 15).

is rich red wool, and the background material is
coarse uncolored linen. These pieces present no
problem and are part of a considerable group.10

From the middle of the tenth century comes
a fine linen-gauze textile (Fig. 3) with delicate
silk tapestry bands in fresh pastel colors: apple
green, pale yellow, and white, accented with
dark blue. The design, which is rather weak, is
of alternating floral patterns and rabbits, circled
with the pearl motif. There is no inscription.
Pieces of this type are not of great archeological
or artistic significance; but they are pleasing be-
cause of their delicate texture and coloring, and
their spaced bands are a link between the single
bands of the earlier garments and the intricate
multiple horizontal patterns of the eleventh- and
twelfth-century textiles.11

The first half of the eleventh century is often
considered to be the finest in Egypto-Arabic tex-
tile decoration, and there are two extremely well-
drawn fragments in the Montreal Museum (Fig.
4), woven with bands of affronted birds, which
may be attributed to the reign of the Fatimid
Caliph al-Häkim (996-1020 a.d.). They are
closely related to another small-scale tapestry
band depicting birds, in the Boston Museum,
which is accompanied by an inscription contain-
ing a pious formula in a style of writing consist-
ent with the reign of al-Häkim.12 There is
another piece of tapestry weaving in the Arab
Museum, Cairo, where such a band of affronted
birds is accompanied by a bold inscription bear-
ing al-Häkim’s name.13 The Montreal piece is on

10 Measurements : .245 by .035; .255 by .03. For
other pieces in this group cf. Britton, op. cit., Figs. 18
and 19, pp. 40-41 and footnotes 16-22.

11 Measurements: .4 by .245. Rondels are .025 high.
Cf. Britton, op. cit., Fig. 36 for a single band of similar
decoration.

12 Cf. Britton, op. cit., Fig. 45, whose style of writing
resembles that of Figs. 43 and 44, the former bearing the
name of al-Häkim. See also Fig. 47 for another design
of clearly-drawn affronted birds.

13 Cf. Gobelins exposition catalogue (see footnote 2),
No. 145, PI. 9.

200

NOTES

a fine greenish blue linen ground with the design
in silk. Single outer bands, in yellow with black
chasing, enclose a central band of small irregular
floral motifs and white birds with yellow or light
blue wings. The field is red.14

The next piece to be considered (Fig. 5) is
an intricate and precise little border, typical of
the second half of the eleventh century. It is
fine and well drawn, with clear primary colors,
on a linen ground, perhaps glazed, with the deco-
ration in silk. The central motif is a broad band
of white rabbits in rondels on a red field; each
rondel is enclosed by a yellow square chased in
black; the squares infringe on the first of three
narrow borders: the inner border of simulated
Kufic in black on yellow, the middle border of
black chased in white, and the outer band of
simulated Kufic in red and white on yellow.15
A simpler version of the same design is in a tex-
tile in the Berlin Museum, published by Kiih-
nel,16 and a more complicated version is in the
Boston Museum.17

Pieces of this class presage the last period of
Fatimid decoration, in the twelfth century, when
decoration had grown rampant in a luxuriance
of interlaced lines. A fine example of this late
Fatimid work (Fig. 6) is woven in tapestry in
the usual brilliant yellow and red silk of the pe-
riod, on a linen ground.18 The formerly central
motifs of rabbits and ducks have now become
entirely subsidiary to their framework and are
hardly recognizable. The Neskhi calligraphy is
also very debased, though it is legible, and reads :

jL&fj

Good fortune and prosperity, (repeated)
Similar pieces are in the Boston Museum: one

14 There is evidence of a second scroll band below
the present one, this time in black with yellow chasing.
Measurements of the pieces are: .24 by .03; .24 by .03.

15 Measurements: .25 by .08.

16 Cf. Kühnei, Islamische Stoffe aus ägyptischen
Gräbern (Berlin, 1927), No. 3137, p. 25, PI. 11.

17 Cf. Britton, op. cit., Fig. 64.

18 Measurements: .355 by .14.

with an inscription bearing the name of the
Fatimid Caliph al-Häfiz (1130-49 a.d.), which
helps to fix the date of the group, and another
with the same inscription as that on the Montreal
piece.19 Other pieces of the type are in the Berlin
Museum.20

Nancy Pence Britton

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
IN AFGHANISTAN

The history of Oriental art and architecture
is only beginning to be enriched with discoveries
made in the eastern part of the Moslem world,
and Afghanistan represents one of the most im-
portant and little-known areas, lying on the trade
routes between Central Asia and India. These
few notes are concerned with the architectural
monuments the Muslims encountered when they
conquered the Kabul region. Afghanistan may
be roughly divided in three sections after the
dominating cultural influences. In the north, the
plains of Afghan Turkestan, with the ancient
center of Balkh, have always been exposed to
invasions from Central Asia. Hence it may truly
be called a part of Turkestan. The west of Af-
ghanistan, centered on the city of Herat, and
including the mountainous central part of the
country, has adopted Iranian culture and man-
ner of speech. Kandahar, Ghazni, Jalalabad, and
the frontier territory are strongly influenced by
Indian manners and customs. The Kabul region
is the meeting place of the three cultures.

It has been assumed that Buddhism did not
extend west of a line roughly drawn from Balkh,
through the mountainous area today known as
the Hazaradjät, to Kandahar, for no Buddhist re-

19 Cf. Britton, op. cit., Figs. 83 and 87.

20 Cf. Kühnei, op. cit., No. 3139, p. 29, PI. 12; and
No. 3138, p. 29, PI. 15.

NOTES

201

mains have been found west of this line.1 From
Arabic and Persian sources it would seem that
Buddhism had been fairly well displaced by the
Zoroastrian religion in Central Asia.2 The con-
quests of the Sasanians in Bactria, as well as the
imitation of the Sasanians by the Ephthalites,
would have given a stimulus to the propagation of
Zoroastrianism. Hsiian Tsang, a Chinese pilgrim
of the seventh century a.d., does not mention
Buddhist monks or monasteries existing in pres-
ent Russian Turkestan, except at Termez on the
Oxus River.3 Hence it is probable that the Mus-
lim invaders first encountered Buddhism and
Buddhist remains in the area of present-day east-
ern Afghanistan. Buddhism persisted in the
mountain fastnesses of Afghanistan long after it
had disappeared in the lowlands, as is evidenced
by the objects recovered from Fundukistän, a
ruined town of the eighth century a.d., in the
mountains north of Kabul.4 Kabul itself has been
an important center from ancient times, but the
city is open to invasion because of its position on
the road to India. On account of this, as well as

1 In conversations with M. Ghirshman, head of the
Délégation Archéologique Française in Afghanistan, and
M. Ahmed Ali Kohzäd, director of the Kabul Museum.

2 This is a vexing question, for there are no accounts
of Muslims meeting Buddhists in Khurasan or Central
Asia. At the same time there existed in many towns gates
or quarters called “Nawbahâr.” The existence of gates
with this name, in Samarkand and Bokhara, indicates the
presence of Buddhists. Cf. W. Barthold, Istoriya Kul-
turnoi zhizni Turkestana (Leningrad, 1927), pp. 41-43.
Bahär is said to be another form of the Buddhist term
“vihara,” or temple. This name is also applied to a
gate in Tüs, near the present city of Meshed. Does this
indicate a Buddhist colony in Tüs? Cf. Asrär al-Tawhid
fï Makâmât Abu Sa'îd (Persian text), ed. by V. A.
Zhukovskii (St. Petersburg, 1899), p. 278.

3 S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World
(London, 1906), I, 39.

4 J. Hackin, “New Excavations in Afghanistan” (in
Persian), Almanach de Kaboul, 1316 h., 1937-38 a.d.,

223-28. Also J. Hackin, “Recherches archéologiques en
Asie Centrale (1931) — Le Site archéologique de Bäzälik

(suite),” Revues des arts asiatiques, X (1936), No. II,
130.

the severe climate, few monuments have survived.
Pre-Muslim relics are, however, more numerous
than early Muslim remains.

Although the Muslims raided the district of
Kabul many times, the real conquest and conver-
sion to Islam dates only from the time of Ya'küb
ibn Laith about 870 a.d. Information about these
early raids, mainly derived from the historians
Balädhurl and Tabari, is exceedingly meager.
Balâdhurï made the following statement: “Abd-
al-Rahman took with him to Basra slaves cap-
tured at Kabul, and they built him a mosque in
his castle there after the Kabul style of build-
ing.” 5 This observation is interesting for the
mosque of Abd-al-Rahman was erected in one of
the early centers of Islam. Unfortunately, the
mosques of Basra have long since vanished, and
the victory columns of Sultan Mahmud at Ghazni
are the oldest standing Islamic monuments in
Afghanistan; hence it is impossible to ascertain
the type of building referred to by the historian.
Furthermore, it seems that the victory towers
erected by the Ghaznevids were not local inspira-
tions, but in imitation of manärs and columns
erected by Indian potentates. Thus, although
nothing remains from early Islamic times, pre-
Muslim remains are very much in evidence.

The city of Kabul in pre-Islamic times was
situated southeast of the present town, near the
juncture of the Kabul and Loghar rivers. Bud-
dhist Kabul was not such a great center as was
Kapisa (Begräm), for the former is not even men-
tioned in the itinerary of Hsiian Tsang.6 At the
present time vestiges of monasteries can be found
near the villages of Shevaki and Kamarï in the
Loghar Valley, about five miles from Kabul.

In good state of preservation are two columns
(manärs) and a stupa; another stupa, in bad

5 F. Murgotten, Origins of the Islamic State (New
York, 1924), p. 147.

6 A. Foucher, “Notes sur l’itinéraire de Hsuan-tsang
en Afghanistan,” Etudes asiatiques publiées à l’occasion
du 2 5e anniversaire de l’école française d’ Extrême Orient,
I (1925), 264.

202

NOTES

state of repair, is near by (Fig. i ). One of the
manärs, the best preserved, is on the crest of a
hill and can be seen from the city of Kabul (Fig.
2). It marks a route to the southern province of
modern Afghanistan (Khöst and Gardiz). The
local inhabitants know the site of Cär manär well,
but any attempt to ascertain the history of these
monuments will evoke a score of conflicting re-
plies. These manärs were noted by Charles Mas-
son (pseudonym for James Lewis), intrepid
British traveler of the last century, but he did not
examine them. It remained for a certain M. Ho-
nigberger to report them fully.7

The stupas and manärs are said to date from
the epoch of the Kushan empire (first to third
centuries a.d.), although it has been suggested
that they were erected in the time of Asoka.8 The
former suggestion is probably nearer the truth,
for the manner of building the walls, with large
rocks placed perpendicular to stone slabs (Fig. j)
is also found in the buildings of Sirkap, Parthian
city of Taxila.9 This style, however, seems to
have persisted for a long time in northwestern
India and Afghanistan, for the same style is to be

7 H. Wilson, Ariana Antiqua (London 1841), pp. 114-
15-

8 Rajatarangini: the Saga of the Kings of Kashmir,
trans. Ranjit Sitaram (Allahabad, 1935), p. 615.

9J. Marshall, Guide to Taxila (Delhi, 1936), pp.
45-46.

observed in Fundukistän and Shahr-i-Zohak. in
the Bämiyän Valley. Fundukistän is an ancient
town situated on a plateau high above the Ghûr-
band River. It marks the junction with a caravan
route to the Kabul Valley. More impressive, and
easier of access, is the site of Zohak. It really
consists of two cities, or a walled town, with a
citadel above it. Its defensive qualities are ex-
cellent. Some parts of the town may date from
the Islamic period, for some of the houses re-
semble those in Shahr-i-Gholghola, the town of
Bämiyän destroyed by Genghiz Khan in 1221
(Figs. 4 and 5). Other buildings in the city may
be much later in date (Fig. 6).

It is only natural that easily defended sites
such as Fundukistän and Shahr-i-Zohak, on top
of mountains, should have survived, while traces
of habitation in the valleys disappeared. Now
buildings are erected in the valleys and plains,
not on hills or mountains. Afghanistan is covered
with kakas, or square forts and caravanserais,
which are also typical of eastern Iran and Turke-
stan. These structures provided adequate pro-
tection for the local population against the ma-
rauding Turkomans and Uzbeks.

The history of monuments in Afghanistan is
too little known to trace the changes and develop-
ments in art and architecture. Certainly, in the
future, excavations in Afghan Seistan, as well
as in the north, will yield interesting results.

Richard N. Frye

Photograph by A. Engler

Fig. i — Stupa in the Valley Below Manär

Photograph by A. Engler

Fig. 2 — Manär on Top of Ridge

Fig. 3 — Close-up of Manär

Figs. 1-3 — Monuments in the Loghar Valley
near Kabul

Figs. 4-6 — Shahr-i-Zohak

BOOK REVIEWS

Excavations at Samarra 1Q36-193Q. Vol. 1,
Architecture and Mural Decoration. Vol. 2,
Objects. Baghdad: Iraq Government, De-
partment of Antiquities, 1940. Vol. 1, 120
pis., 20 figs., plans, diagrams in text. Ara-
bic text, 56 pp.; English text, 25 pp. Vol. 2,
144 pis., Arabic text, 21 pp.; English text,
13 PP-

Volume i. As Herzfeld had not published a
final volume of ground plans and descriptions of
the buildings which he excavated at Samarra,1 the
Department of Antiquities of the Iraq govern-
ment resolved to devote part of its grant to carry
out further work there and make good the defi-
ciency in our knowledge. This may be regarded
as the most important part of their report. The
Iraqi excavators examined the ruins of the pal-
ace at al-Huwaisilât, which they identify with
Ibn Serapion’s Kasr al-Djass (inconsistently
transliterated as “al-Jass” or “al-Jas”). The
ground plan of the palace is compared with that
said by Mas'üdï 2 to have been evolved by the
Lakhmid monarchs of Hira, and introduced into
Islamic architecture by the Caliph al-Mutawakkil
in imitation of them. The plan described by
Mas£üdl evidently approximates very closely to

1 Professor Herzfeld was kind enough to supply the
following information about the last Samarra volumes in
a letter dated Princeton, June 24, 1945: “The plates for
Samarra, Vol. VI, were printed early in 1941, and the
manuscript for the text was sent over before Germany
declared war, so shortly before — about twenty days — that
I never heard whether it arrived or not. This volume dealt
with the town as a whole, its prehistory, its topography,
its history (phases of building), and the people living
there. Many single buildings were published in it, especially
isolated buildings, also bridges, such as the Band-i-‘Adaim
and Harba; but not the architecture of the palaces,
mosques, and private houses, which would have become
volumes VII and VIII. There is a complete air survey
in it, besides the maps made on the ground.” — ED.

2 Murüdj. al-Dhahab. VII, 192-93.

the layout of Kasr al-Djass. Ground plans, be-
sides those of the palace, shown in the report
include plans of some of the “houses” excavated
— in size and number of rooms almost palaces
themselves. These houses were selected from
various parts of the area, and the report gives a
brief outline of their general features and the
special points of interest in each building. Fresh
material on Islamic domestic architecture has
been made available by the examination of
sirdäb basement rooms of a type still in use in
Iraq, bathrooms, latrines, columbaria, fermenta-
tion vats, foundations, and paved, tiled, or mar-
ble floors, though the latter do not show well in
the half-tone plates.

Volume 2. Though also well-documented
by photographs, the second half of this report
does not contain enough precise description of
the objects under consideration; in each case a
scale is shown, but no proper measurements are
given. This practice detracts considerably from
its usefulness, since it is devoted to the small
antiquities found at Samarra, mostly glazed and
unglazed pottery; it also contains inscribed ob-
jects of several categories which, however, yield
little new information apart from names of pot-
ters and metalworkers. No beads or gems are
shown, though the excavators must surely have
come upon them during the course of their work.
As is to be expected the small antiquities merely
amplify the number of examples of Samarra types
already known.

There are sherds stamped with devices, gen-
erally abstract designs or animals, and sometimes
with inscriptions; these are probably the trade-
marks of individuals or firms of potters. Some
glazed and unglazed pieces are incised or inscribed
with names. Most important of the inscribed
class is an unglazed pottery grenade of a type
familiar to archaeologists and noted by Hobson
as being of uncertain function ; this grenade bears
a Kufic inscription implying that it was used as

204

BOOK REVIEWS

a container for wine. I cannot, however, concur
with the author’s conclusion that all these gre-
nades were used for wine, and indeed they might
have been used to contain perfumes, which were
an article of export from several Islamic prov-
inces, though perfumes seem in the main to have
been exported in glass bottles. It would be inter-
esting to discover a reference to such a grenade
in one of the literary sources, such as the Khamrl-
yät of Abü Nuwäs and similar writers.

The first volume, mostly a collection of plates,
contains a great series of stucco mural decoration,
dadoes, arches, or separate fragments of stucco
ornament — a veritable dictionary of early Abba-
sid pattern and design. These patterns vary from
flower motifs to abstract ornament not unlike
linen paneling; they include the Sasanian pearl
pattern, floral designs resembling the Mshattä
carvings, designs of a Byzantine type, sometimes
containing crosses, and rectangular-linear pat-
terns. In many can be discerned early forms of
that distinctive style known as Islamic, despite
the many sources from which al-Mu‘tasim drew
his artificers and craftsmen. If, however, these
finds be compared with the already known mate-
rial published by Herzfeld it will at once be per-
ceived that there is little not already known.

This last statement also applies to the frag-
ments of mural paintings, a slight, though never
to be despised addition to the knowledge of early
Muslim painting. “Mural paintings,” says the
report, “also seem to have needed continual re-
newal. The walls of one house, for instance, bore
signs of repeated replastering, each layer of plas-
ter showing a different painted design consisting
of flowers and animals, or purely geometrical
patterns.” It must be noted that the painted all-
over repeat patterns are much inferior to the high
standard of the stucco work. The most interesting
painting shows a griffin’s head, resembling the
bronze griffin of the Campo Santo at Pisa, evi-
dently not recognized as such by the authors of
the report. There are more examples of faces of
the familiar types already published by Herzfeld,

a moon-shaped female face, an animal drinking,
and the head of a gazelle or buffalo.

Two inscriptions are shown, a Kufic inscrip-
tion in gypsum, and another on a stone mihrab.
There are photographs of short, stumpy columns
with a curious bulbous base.

Classified groups of sherds and individual
pieces are shown, some entire examples being also
drawn in section. As is to be expected, much of
the unglazed and some of the glazed wares have
affinities with Parthian and Sasanian pottery.
These unglazed wares, incised, stamped, or deco-
rated in relief, form the largest class of ceramics,
but a few pieces of Barbotino of an elaborate type
are illustrated, with formalized human and ani-
mal forms applied to the surface.

The commonest type of glazed ware seems to
be ordinary blue and green glazed pottery, though,
in general, descriptions of color and indeed every-
thing but the barest details are lacking. Already
familiar to us from the Sarre and Herzfeld exca-
vations are wares with polychrome glaze decora-
tion and with incised underglaze ornament,
pottery lamps, lusters, crimson, brown, gold, and
silver, Chinese celadon plates, and bowls. Some
graffito fragments have been produced in line
drawing.

The glassware consists of familiar Muslim
types, including some examples with molded
ridged patterns, which I could match with identi-
cal pieces from the Tihäma coast. Plate cxxi ( b )
shows a small decorated glass bottle which may
be identical with No. 183, Tafel vii of C. J.
Lamm’s report on the Samarra glass.

Other small antiquities comprise glazed tiles,
mosaic, marble, wood, and metal objects, includ-
ing a pair of copper chair legs, weights, orna-
ments, and nails, a motley but instructive débris.

This report must be regarded as a preliminary
record of the 1936-39 excavations, still lacking
that detailed analysis and description which will
enable scholars in other countries to profit from
the discoveries made by the Iraqi investigators.
The two volumes are well turned out, but the
plates are of too fine a screen for the paper, and

BOOK REVIEWS

205

good though the blocks are they would have
printed much better had a little more care been
taken in the make-ready. The English is not well
proofread; in the second volume it is occasionally
unintelligible, and recourse has to be had to the
Arabic text. Though these faults cannot be over-
looked, the report is a creditable production, all
the more so because archaeology in Iraq is a sci-
ence in its infancy, a government care only since
the country became independent of Turkey.

R. B. Serjeant

Sumer, A Journal of Archaeology in Iraq. Gov-
ernment of Iraq Directorate of Antiquities.
(Issued twice yearly, provisionally). Bagh-
dad, 1945. Vol. i, No. i. Arabic, 142 pp. ;
English, 31 pp., illus., maps, plans. Annual
subscription, Iraqi dinars 1/500 (30 shil-
lings) outside Iraq.

In a foreword the director, Dr. Naji al-Asil,
states the policy of his department:

The great world of the past in the pre-Islamic field
must be continued, but at the same time, suitable emphasis
must be laid on the cultural heritage bequeathed to us
by our Arab ancestors. All vestiges that remain to us of
the glorious floruit of Iraq under the ‘Abbasid caliphs
must be our especial care, more particularly those aspects
of Islamic archaeology which in the past have understand-
ably received less attention from western scholars.

Seton Lloyd’s summary of wartime archaeo-
logical activity in Iraq is reprinted from the
Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society (Lon-
don), and two articles already published else-
where in English, Fu’ad Safar’s report on the
Tall al-‘Ukair excavations, and Taha Bakir’s re-
port on those at Akarküf 1 now appear in Arabic
form. A new article (in Arabic) has been written
on Sumerian Sculpture by Akram Shukri, but the
main article of importance to readers of Ars
Islamica will be Gurgis ‘Awad’s “The Mustan-

1 Journ. Near Eastern Studies, II, No. 2 (1943), and
Iraq, 1944, respectively.

siriyah College.” This article is given both in Ara-
bic and English, but the latter version is much
abbreviated; it is based on Arabic historical
sources and the accounts of European travelers,
including those of Herzfeld, with observations
by the author. The organization of the college,
historical events in which it figures, and architec-
tural descriptions given in early Arabic litera-
ture have been collected and woven into a well-
documented narrative. An account of the Mus-
tansiriya clock from an Arabic source is com-
pared with the well-known clock in the Treatise
on Automata of al-Jazari, published by Cooma-
raswamy.

The list of contents concludes with notes and
statistics. The Iraq government’s “Three Years’
Plan” for antiquities includes the completion
of the National Museum at Baghdad, already
commenced at the outbreak of the war, the con-
struction of a regional museum at Mosul, the
restoration of the Mustansiriya College, the com-
pletion of work on the Abbasid palace at Bagh-
dad, the construction of a museum at Kerbela,
and a new building for the Costumes Museum and
King Faisal I Memorial Exhibition.

While the printing of this journal is not yet
perfect, it is technically a great advance on any-
thing previously produced by the Iraq Govern-
ment Press. There is still room for improvement
in the illustrations, though many are very good,
and in the proofreading of the English text, but
Sumer is an ambitious piece of work which merits
the attention of the learned world, and its con-
tents display scholarship and competence in the
contributors.

R. B. Serjeant

Some Notes on the Antiquities in the Abbasid
Palace. Baghdad: Government of Iraq, Di-
rectorate of Antiquities, 1943. 8 pp.

This pamphlet gives a very brief account of
the Abbasid palace at Baghdad, so-called for lack
of other information as to its foundation or pur-
pose. It is thought to belong to the late Abbasid

206

BOOK REVIEWS

period.1 The building has now been partly re-
stored, and the bulk of the Arab antiquities from
the Khan Marjan Museum have been transferred
there. Photographs of the work of restoration
have appeared in “Wartime Restoration of Two
Famous Buildings in Iraq— The Abbasid Palace,
Baghdad, and the Arch of Ctesiphon,” 2 and else-
where. It is a pity that these notes do not include
even a rough ground plan of the palace showing
the layout of the various rooms.

1 Mustafa Jawad, in Sumer, I, No. 2 (1945), just re-
ceived by the reviewer, identifies the palace with Dar
al-Musannät, for which building see G. Le Strange,
“The Abbasid Palace,” Baghdad during the Abbasid Cal-
iphate (Oxford, 1924), pp. 61-104.

2 Illus. London News, CCIV (1944), No. 5478,444-45.

The vestibule and court and the fifteen dis-
play rooms of the palace now contain a number
of cases of exhibits. A catalogue, arranged ac-
cording to the showcases, of these exhibits ap-
pears in this pamphlet. It should serve also as
a general guide to the contents. More detailed
studies with photographs will no doubt be issued
later by the Directorate of Antiquities once the
work of restoration and renovation is complete.3

R. B. Serjeant

3 For recent work in Iraq, see H. F. Seton Lloyd,
“Notes on War-time Archaeological Activity in Iraq,”
Journ. Royal Central Asian Soc., XXXI (1944), Pts.
III-IV, 308-12; also reprinted in Sumer, I (1945).

IN MEMORIAM

LAURENCE BINYON

TT he study and appreciation of oriental art in the west is, after all, a new thing.
Oriental learning found its admirers and interpreters in Europe in the twelfth century and the
seventeenth; during the hundred years from 1775 to 1875 Eastern poetry and philosophy had a
considerable influence on Western thought, especially in Germany, and, a little later, in France.
In England they formed a considerable tributary to the main stream of the romantic move-
ment. But it was not until after this period was over that oriental art found any deep appreci-
ation. This is, of course, not to forget the earlier vogue for chinoiserie, which was a borrowing
of motifs from an art whose technical accomplishments in porcelain and lacquer won a salute
from that age of taste, without any further significance for the West than the dilution of the
hitherto purely classical repertory of ornament. But after the way had been paved by the
translation of Eastern poetry, especially Persian and Sanskrit, by the last quarter of the nine-
teenth century the West was ready to approach the art of the East with respect. And so, the
breaking down of the narrow limits to the range of what good taste would accept in the visual
arts fell in with a development which was also widening the range of taste in letters and phi-
losophy until the schools of Eastern painting and sculpture could find consideration alongside
the medieval, the classical, and the Egyptian; and very soon came the recognition in them of
an even greater interest for an age which was in its own way sophisticated, humanistic, and
intellectual; or sensuous, romantic, and visionary, just as the arts of the Far and Near East
seemed to be.

During a period like this when Eastern art was being approached and studied from a com-
pletely new angle, for the first time on the level, there are only two ways of approach, in de-
fault of any established criteria: either to accept the East’s own standards of values to be
found in its critical writing and tradition, or to achieve a widening of taste and judgment until
a degree of universality could be reached. Both ways were tried; but it was natural and fortu-
nate that the latter had the greater influence. For human nature is seldom found to knit
outstanding scholarship with superlative taste; and it might well have taken generations for
the work of scholars to make its way into the general circulation of Western thought, whereas,
by the alternative method it was possible to go immediately to the heart of the matter.

There is no space here to consider the development from the japonaiserie of the Gon-
courts to the present admiration for the strength of form of archaic Chinese bronzes and jades.
We must limit ourselves here to the appreciation of Islamic art. Just because it was nearer in
space, and never since the Crusades completely strange to Europe, Muhammadan art could not
strike with the same freshness as that of China or Japan. It is therefore all the more remark-
able that the eye of the West, so long closed to the excellencies of what it had had under its
notice, should have been opened. For, although Mogul drawings or Mosul bronzes had been
found in connoisseurs’ collections, they had been regarded as mere tours de force of technical

2Q8

IN MEMORIAM

skill. A glance through the entries describing the miniatures in the catalogues published dur-
ing the nineteenth century by the principal oriental libraries of the West will show at once
how patronizing and estranged were these same oriental scholars in art matters. With the turn
of the century all that began to change, and public exhibitions of Islamic art found enthusi-
astic if not always discriminating critics. Such éblouissement could not last, and the love of sheer
color characteristic of art nouveau passed. After 1914 the romanticism of Pierre Loti no
longer colored the general view of the Near East. It was time for serious appraisal.

Even in the first edition of his Painting in the Far East, published in 1908, Laurence
Binyon included a short chapter on Persia. He for long shared the enthusiasm of the collec-
tors of Paris, especially of his friends Victor Goloubew, Raymond Koechlin, and Gaston Migeon,
for Persian miniatures; and in London his older and closer friends Charles Ricketts and Shan-
non did not neglect this field in framing their remarkable collection. It was therefore in a
circle of appreciation that Binyon was writing. And his friendship with Sir Thomas Arnold,
professor of Persian at the London School of Oriental Studies, also keenly interested in
Italian painting and Christian iconography, gave him an introduction to Persian literary stud-
ies. From 1920 Binyon was able to make available to students in the British Museum Print
Room a selection from the Museum’s old collections of Indian and Persian miniatures, and in
the summer of 1922 he staged in the exhibition gallery of his department a show of these
paintings for which he wrote a catalogue. About the same time he published with Arnold his
Court Painters of the Grand Moguls, which drew also for its illustrations upon the collections
at the Bodleian Library and the India Office, then practically unknown to the public; it con-
tained an appreciation of the unique vision of this school, with purity of line and powers of
observation of all forms of life, men, animals, and flowers. At a later date he was to return to
this period in a tribute to the greatness of spirit of the Emperor Akbar, that strange mixture
of action and mysticism, of illiteracy and love of scholarship and art, whose efforts to rise
above the racial and religious differences of his empire he viewed so sympathetically in a short
but vivid biography.

While the painting of the Far East stirred deeper emotions, Binyon got no keener enjoy-
ment than from some Indian and Persian drawings, in whose lyric qualities of line and color
he found delight which he was able to communicate in his writings and lectures. The introduc-
tions to his publications of the miniatures of the royal Nizami manuscript of 1539-43 in the
British Museum (1929) and of the Royal Asiatic Society’s Timurid Shahnama, which he
edited with J. V. S. Wilkinson in 1931, and finally to the volume commemorating the Persian
Exhibition of 1931 (published in 1934), could not have been better as descriptions of the
pleasures of Persian painting. His lectures too at this time undoubtedly won much apprecia-
tion for an art then very little known, even to art lovers and critics. In his lectures on the art
of Asia at Harvard in 1933-34 he made his final assessment of the place of the arts of Persia
and India in Asia and the world.

A remarkable quality of Binyon’s appreciation was the judgment with which he discrimi-
nated the superlative from the ordinary, the forced from the true. And his clear insight quali-
fied his first view of an art form hitherto unknown to him. His imaginative sympathy and

IN MEMORIAM

209

sensibility seemed indeed of universal range. It was this which gave sureness of touch to his
criticism, and its force was immeasurably enhanced by the rich and expressive language which
marked his prose writing no less than his poetry. His was an integrated spirit, and it is there-
fore true to think of his contribution to Islamic studies as the work of a poet, a vision illumi-
nating and revealing the essence of what he saw and reaching behind it to the spiritual springs
of the civilization that produced it. He may in perspective appear the central figure in the
period of appreciation of oriental art that has been characteristic of the last fifty years. At the
present stage of the expansion of civilization in range and universality, no work is more im-
portant than this of interpretation, and upon its quality depends the quality of the civilization
which will be handed on.

Laurence Binyon was born on August io, 1869, and educated at St. Paul’s School, Lon-
don, then still under the shadow of the Cathedral, and at Trinity College, Oxford, of which he
was scholar in classics, and later honorary fellow. He entered the British Museum in 1893,
and became the first head of the Sub-Department of Oriental Prints and Drawings in 1913;
during the last year of his service, before his retirement in 1933, he was also Keeper of Prints
and Drawings. He visited the United States as a lecturer in 1912, 1914, and 1926, and for a
longer stay, after his retirement, in 1933-34; and he made many friendships during these
visits which he greatly enjoyed. In 1929 he was invited to visit Japan, where he delivered a
series of lectures in English on “Landscape in English Art and Poetry,” which were afterwards
printed; his Norton lectures were published under the title of The Spirit of Man in Asian Art.
As a museum man he was outstanding in hanging and arrangement, and the periodic exhibitions
in his department, each of which was planned with great care, were among the most popular in
the Museum. He was always ready with encouragement and sympathy for the young artist
and student, and his reserve covered a sociable nature that had a keen enjoyment of wit as well as
of beauty. He traveled with zest, and he had a special affection for France and Italy, where his
friends were many. His last journey was to Greece, where in the early months of 1940 he
occupied the Byron Chair of English Letters in the University of Athens. He died on March
10, 1943, and is buried at Aldworth near his Berkshire home.

Basil Gray

FRIEDRICH SARRE

Friedrich sarre was born on june 22, 1865, and died on june 1, 1945. as the name
shows, the family had come from the Sarre region; it was one of those Huguenot families
which, persecuted under Catarina de’ Medici, had left France after the night of St. Bartholo-
mew, August 24, 1572. Some of them, like the van Berchems who had fled from Brussels to
southern Germany and Switzerland, stayed there. Others accepted the refuge offered to them
by the Great Elector of Brandenburg after the Thirty Years War. Those who had found
peace in Berlin flourished and, by one of those roundabout ways history takes, became the
almost only “Old Berliners.” That is a closed period, and though the end is not yet a year
old, it is as far away as the Middle Ages. In a medieval chronicle of Aleppo there is a
remark on one of the oldest families of that town, one of whose great monuments, the minaret
of Aleppo, erected before the crusades, is still standing: “They were Ukaili Arabs, their an-
cestor had immigrated three hundred years earlier, the family enjoyed always the greatest
respect with the rulers, but never did one of them aspire to political power, they were much
too proud and too honorable to lend themselves to such a thing.” Characters to whom noblesse
oblige is the dominant principle of life grow in the soil of a society in which to make a living is
not the primal necessity and the scale for moral conduct. Wilamowitz once said to me: “A van
Berchem will never do what is not right ! ” The same could have been said of Sarre: loyalty, hon-
esty, and decency absolute, and with these a modesty that never allowed him to assume an
attitude of superiority.

He remained in the background, for he did not sell and advertise and never loved com-
promises. He once told me an anecdote, an amusing equivocal remark of his captain at a
riding lesson: “Sarre, you must ‘ sich kompromittieren ’ with your horse,” meaning literally “ex-
pose yourself,” but meant as “compromise.” With truth and history one cannot compromise,
the consequences of defaults are inescapable.

Sarre was very young when his parents died, and his aunt, Elise Wetzel-Heckmann
(1832-1913), the only lady ever to be a member of the Berlin Academy, took his mother’s
place. Archeological studies attracted his interest, and he started traveling early. In Smyrna
he met Carl Humann, who then was excavating Pergamon, and it was Humann, as Sarre told
me, who recommended to him the study of the great monuments of medieval Anatolia, which
at that time had received hardly any attention. In 1895 he organized a journey through Phry-
gia, Lycaonia, and Pisidia, followed in 1896 by a longer journey into central Asia Minor.
Seeing that the monuments needed exact and meticulous surveying, he prepared himself to be
the photographer, to a degree rare at that time. It may be forgotten that till 1880 one had to
prepare the emulsions of the glass negatives oneself while traveling. And he always took a
trained and competent architect with him. As a result, the great works based on his journeys
in Asia Minor, Persia, and Turkestan are models of a beauty difficult to equal. The journeys
in Persia and Turkestan were made in 1897-98 and 1899-1900. The epigraphic material col-

IN MEMORIAM

2 1 1

lected was given to Arabists like B. Moritz of Cairo, Eugen Mittwoch of Berlin, and later
Max van Berchem of Geneva.

Back from these great explorations, he married Maria Humann in 1900, after Humann’s
death, and above the lake of Babelsberg built a house which looked like a reminiscence of
Florence transferred to the sands and firs of Brandenburg, a house to which it was a distinc-
tion to be admitted and which, under Maria Sarre’s guidance, became a center of hospitality,
known and admired by many people from Europe, America, and Asia.

In 1905 Eduard Meyer introduced me, a student just back from a journey from Assur to
Persepolis, to Sarre, who proposed to me to publish the Old Persian material he had collected ;
he wished to take charge only of the Middle Iranian monuments. These Iranische Felsreliefs
were published in 1910 in a first edition of a hundred copies only, the value of which is en-
tirely in Sarre’s fifty imperial folio-size photographs. Before the book appeared, we started
together in 1907-8, on a new journey, which led from Constantinople to Aleppo, Baghdad,
and the Persian Gulf. An incident of that journey is vividly impressed in my mind: some-
where in the desert between Mosul and Samarra a messenger on horseback met us, saying
that he had looked for us for more than a week to deliver a telegram. Sarre, who had been
without news from his family for a month, became so gray under his tan that I thought he
was fainting: it was an invitation to some reception at Baghdad.

The purpose of the journey was to choose an early Muhammadan site for excavation,
and the choice fell, as foreseen, on Samarra. Excavating ruins of such a comparatively late
period was Sarre’s idea. Hamdi and Halil Bey Edhem in Constantinople favored the plan,
and Elise Wetzel-Heckmann made the execution possible by a foundation for studies in the
field of Muhammadan archaeology. The report of the Archaeolo gische Reise im Euphrat- und
Tigris-Gebiet appeared in four volumes of the Forschungen zur islamischen Kunst, edited by
Sarre between 1911 and 1920. The excavations of Samarra took place in 1911-13, but World
War I delayed the beginning of their publication till 1923; the fifth volume appeared in 1930,
a sixth has been in preparation since 1940, and the remaining two volumes will probably never
appear.

In 1935, on Sarre’s seventieth birthday, a book, Friedrich Sarre’s Schriften, was brought
out (by the publisher D. Reimer-E. Vohsen) which shows the wide scope of Sarre’s more than
two hundred publications and gives a vivid picture of the far-reaching influence his literary
activity had in promoting our knowledge of the eastern countries and the relation and contact
of their civilization with ours.

Sarre was one of the first to collect works of Oriental art, and his private collection, of
which he gave the greater part to the Kaiser Friedrich-Museum, and the collection which he
started together with Wilhelm Bode for the Museum were known the world over. When I
once asked him, how, as a first collector and from the start, he could pick out the very best
things, he answered: “It was not so, only, I have eliminated my earlier mistakes.” He also
said that he had discovered far more in Paris than in the East. His collection was not one of
treasures measured in financial value, though there were priceless objects in it and he never

212

IN MEMORIAM

was afraid of paying high prices, nor was it a collection of the most beautiful things as were
some of the collections of the older Russian amateurs. It was guided by knowledge and re-
search, the collection of a scholar and connoisseur of art, and hence was one intrinsic unit.
With his exploring and collecting he had opened a new way, which has been followed since by
public museums and institutions of learning.

The famous “Façade of Mshatta” in the Kaiser Friedrich-Museum, from Transjordania,
one of the earliest and most important monuments of Muhammadan antiquity, which was
Sarre’s pride, received a direct bomb hit. The most important of the antique carpets, collected
with infinite pains in long years, were burned in the cellars in which they had been put
for safekeeping. Sarre’s private collection, though some pieces were saved before the war,
exists no longer. His house, too, was looted, when, the morning after his burial, June 4, 1945,
his family was ordered to leave the house at an hour’s notice. After that hour, works of art,
an irreplaceable library, studies, notes, photographs, letters, the whole scientific heritage was
destroyed and burned, and thus has gone with him. Individuals may survive, but a living tra-
dition of three hundred years, which started before there was a Saint Petersburg-Leningrad
and even a New Amsterdam-New York, is dead. The generation of scholars to whom Sarre
belonged, and who were his friends, such as Melchior de Vogüé, Wilhelm Bode, Max van Ber-
chem, Halil Edhem, and Leone Caetani, is gone. They were privileged, a thing unpopular
today. Not that they had usurped privileges, they owned them as gift of forces far beyond
men and felt them as deep obligation. One cannot even regret or complain. Van Berchem
wrote me, shortly after World War I, “Why should one wish to live in a world that wants to
revert to barbarism?” and died. Caetani died in self-imposed exile. Sarre, too, saw the doom
coming, but had to drink the bitter cup to the dregs. The only thing spared to him was to see
the looting of his house.

Requiescat in pace, or, as his Oriental friends may say, Rahimahullah !

Ernst Herzfeld

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Ars islamica"

See other formats